National Park Service 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

Natural Resource Program Center 

Assessment of Water Resources and Watershed 

Conditions in the Chattahoochee River National 

Recreation Area, Georgia 

Natural Resource Report NPS/SECN/NRR—2010/274 
ON THE COVER 

City scape, Palisades Unit, Chattahoochee River National Recreation Area. 

Photograph by: Eric Morris 
Assessment of Water Resources and Watershed 

Conditions in the Chattahoochee River National 

Recreation Area, Georgia 

Natural Resource Report NPS/SECN/NRR—2010/274 

JoAnn M. Burkholder, Elle H. Allen, Carol A. Kinder, and Eric B. Morris 

Center for Applied Aquatic Ecology 

North Carolina State University 

620 Hutton Street, Suite 104 

Raleigh, NC 27606 

 

December 2010 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

National Park Service 

Natural Resource Program Center

Fort Collins, Colorado 
ii 

The National Park Service, Natural Resource Program Center publishes a range of reports that 

address natural resource topics of interest and applicability to a broad audience in the National 

Park Service and others in natural resource management, including scientists, conservation and 

environmental constituencies, and the public. 

The Natural Resource Report Series is used to disseminate high-priority, current natural resource 

management information with managerial application. The series targets a general, diverse 

audience, and may contain NPS policy considerations or address sensitive issues of management 

applicability. 

All manuscripts in the series receive the appropriate level of peer review to ensure that the 

information is scientifically credible, technically accurate, appropriately written for the intended 

audience, and designed and published in a professional manner. This report received formal peer 

review by subject-matter experts who were not directly involved in the collection, analysis, or reporting 

of the data, and whose background and expertise put them on par technically and scientifically with the 

authors of the information.

Views, statements, findings, conclusions, recommendations, and data in this report do not 

necessarily reflect views and policies of the National Park Service, U.S. Department of the 

Interior. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or 

recommendation for use by the U.S. Government. 

This report is available in the Reports and Publications section of the Southeast Coast Inventory 

and Monitoring Network webpage (http://science.nature.nps.gov/im/units/secn/) and the Natural 

Resource Publications Management website (http://www.nature.nps.gov/publications/NRPM). 

Please cite this publication as: 

Burkholder, J. M., E. H. Allen, C. A. Kinder, and E. B. Morris. 2010. Assessment of water 

resources and watershed conditions in the Chattahoochee River National Recreation Area, 

Georgia. Natural Resource Report NPS/SECN/NRR—2010/274. National Park Service, Fort 

Collins, Colorado.

NPS 363/106205, December 2010 
iii 

Contents 

Page 

Figures........................................................................................................................................... vii

Tables ............................................................................................................................................. xi

Plates ............................................................................................................................................. xv

Appendices .................................................................................................................................. xvii

Acknowledgments........................................................................................................................ xix

Abbreviations ............................................................................................................................... xxi

Executive Summary .................................................................................................................... xxv

Recommendations ............................................................................................................... xxvi

Park Description.............................................................................................................................. 1

Background .............................................................................................................................. 1

Location, Size, and Boundaries .......................................................................................... 1

History of the Park .............................................................................................................. 2

Land Use / Land Cover in the Chattahoochee Watershed ..................................................... 11

Hydrologic Information ......................................................................................................... 18

General Area ..................................................................................................................... 18

Surface Waters .................................................................................................................. 18

Wetlands ........................................................................................................................... 27

Groundwater Resources .................................................................................................... 29

Biological Resources ............................................................................................................. 29

Microalgae ........................................................................................................................ 30

Wetland and Aquatic Macrophytes ................................................................................... 31

Terrestrial Vegetation ....................................................................................................... 38

Aquatic Macroinvertebrates .............................................................................................. 39
iv 

Fish .................................................................................................................................... 45

Amphibians and Reptiles .................................................................................................. 51

Birds .................................................................................................................................. 53

Mammals........................................................................................................................... 53

Species of Concern as Endangered, Threatened, or Rare ................................................. 57

Exotic and Invasive Species .............................................................................................. 58

Assessment of Park Water and Air Resources ...................................................................... 61

Surface Water Quality ....................................................................................................... 61

Drinking Water ................................................................................................................. 79

Groundwater Quality ........................................................................................................ 81

Sources of Pollutants ............................................................................................................. 82

Point Sources .................................................................................................................... 85

Nonpoint Sources .............................................................................................................. 86

Assessment of Biological Resources With Respect To Water and Air Quality .................... 92

Water Quality Standards ................................................................................................... 92

Impaired Surface Water Quality and Habitat .................................................................... 95

Insufficient Monitoring to Evaluate or Protect the Chattahoochee and Its Tributaries .. 100

Lack of Enforcement of Water Quality Regulations ...................................................... 101

Air Quality Standards ..................................................................................................... 102

Air Resources .................................................................................................................. 104

Surface Water Supplies: Drinking Water Versus Ecological Needs ............................. 108

Groundwater ................................................................................................................... 110

Ecosystem Effects ........................................................................................................... 111

Human Health Issues ...................................................................................................... 112

Other Issues of Concern ....................................................................................................... 114
v 

Population Growth and Land Use Changes .................................................................... 114

Physical Impacts From Activities in the Park ................................................................. 115

Other Continuous Land Issues and Impacts .................................................................... 117

Synopsis of Stressors to the Park ......................................................................................... 118

Recommendations To Address Impairments, Potential Impacts, and Undocumented Water 

Bodies ......................................................................................................................................... 121

General Comments .............................................................................................................. 121

Specific Recommendations ................................................................................................. 121

Literature Cited ........................................................................................................................... 125

vii 

Figures 

Page 

Figure 1. Map of the Atlanta area, showing the general park area as well as two other NPS 

entities, Kennesaw Mountain National Battlefield Park, and the Ocmulgee National 

Monument. ...................................................................................................................................... 2

Figure 2. Overview map of the park in the five-county area (Cobb, Fulton, Forsyth, 

Gwinnett, and Dekalb), showing locations of the 16 present-day Park Units, Lake Lanier, the 

Chattahoochee River, various tributaries, and watershed boundaries ............................................ 3

Figure 3. Section I of the park, designated for this Report – the three northernmost park 

Units Bowman’s Island, Orrs Ferry, and Settles Bridge; the Lake Lanier source water for the 

mainstem Chattahoochee River in the park area; and major tributaries Haw Creek, Richland 

Creek, James Creek, Level Creek, and Dick Creek (note that the area south of the diagonal 

line is in Section II). ........................................................................................................................ 6

Figure 4. Section II of the park proceeding south, showing Park Units 4-7 as McGinnis 

Ferry, Suwanee Creek, Abbotts Bridge, Medlock Bridge, and all but the southern end of 

Park Unit # 8, Jones Bridge; and Chattahoochee River tributaries Suwanee Creek and Johns 

Creek.. ............................................................................................................................................. 7

Figure 5. Section III of the park proceeding south, showing the southern end of Park Unit 

#8, and Units 9-13 as Holcomb Bridge, Island Ford, Vickery Creek, Gold Branch, and 

Johnson Ferry (the latter including Hyde Farm, acquired in 2008); the Chattahoochee River 

Environmental Education Center (CREEC – in the southern area of Park Unit 8); and 

Chattahoochee River tributaries Crooked Creek, Vickery Creek, and March Creek, as well 

as Bull Sluice Lake and the Morgan Falls Dam. ............................................................................ 8

Figure 6. Section IV of the park – southernmost Park Units 14-16 as Cochran Shoals, 

Palisades, and Paces Mill; and Chattahoochee River tributaries Sope Creek, Long Island 

Creek, Rottenwood Creek, and Little Nancy Creek. ...................................................................... 9

Figure 7. Land use in the Chattahoochee River watershed that lies upstream from the 

southernmost extension of the park, based on data layers from 2005 that were provided by 

the Natural Resources Spatial Analysis Laboratory at the University of Georgia. ...................... 12

Figure 8. Map of land use in the portion of the Chattahoochee River watershed from Lake 

Lanier to the southernmost extension of the park, based on data layers from 2005 that were 

provided by the Natural Resources Spatial Analysis Laboratory at the University of Georgia ... 13

Figure 9. Impervious surface cover model for the health of the park watershed, considering 

a micro-watershed time series from 1991 to 2005 ........................................................................ 17

Figure 10. Schematic of tributaries with watersheds larger than three square miles that enter 

the Chattahoochee River within park segments.). ....................................................................... 19
viii 

Figure 11. Annual average flow at the USGS stations that have available data over ca. the 

past decade including: (upper panel) Three stations in the Chattahoochee River, Buford Dam 

(USGS 02334430), Norcross (USGS 02335000), and above Roswell (USGS 02335450); and 

(lower panel) One station each on tributaries Suwanee Creek (USGS 02334885), Big Creek 

southeast of Alpharetta (USGS 02335700), and Sope Creek (USGS 02335870). ....................... 21

Figure 12. Left panels, Chattahoochee River at Buford Dam (USGS station 02334885): 

Daily discharge over the period of record (1945-), daily discharge and daily gage height over 

the recent ~decade. Right panels, Chattahoochee River near Norcross (USGS 02335000): 

Daily discharge over the period of record (1904-), and daily discharge and daily gage height 

over the past ~decade. ................................................................................................................... 24

Figure 13. Left panels, Chattahoochee River above Roswell (USGS station 02335450): 

Daily discharge over the period of record (1976-), and daily discharge and daily gage height 

over the past ~decade. Right panels, Chattahoochee River below Morgan Falls Dam (USGS 

02335815): Daily discharge over the period of record (1985-) and daily discharge and daily 

gage height over the past ~decade. .............................................................................................. 25

Figure 14. Left panels, Big Creek (USGS station 02334885): Daily discharge and daily gage 

height at Big Creek over the period of record (1997-). Right panels, Sope Creek (USGS 

02335870): Daily discharge over the period of record (1985-) and daily discharge and daily 

gage height over the past ~decade. ............................................................................................... 26

Figure 15. Suwanee Creek (USGS 02334885): Daily discharge over the period of record 

(1984-), and daily discharge and daily gage height over the past decade. .................................... 27

Figure 16. Relationship between land area (in hectares) and herpetofauna species richness, 

excluding exotic (introduced) species, among 16 parks within the Southeast Coast Network 

of the NPS, including this park, showing the strong positive linear relationship between (logtransformed) land area and species richness (P = 0.001).. ............................................................ 51

Figure 17. Map showing Section I (northernmost area) of the park, indicating Park Units, 

water quality sampling sites, and stream gaging sites in relation to pollution sources 

including land application sites (LASs), landfills, NPDES point source sites, and town 

boundaries reflecting urban/suburban runoff (created by the NCSU CAAE). Streams 

officially recognized as water quality-impaired (303d-listed) are also indicated. Numbered ..... 63

Figure 18. Map showing Section II of the park and indicating Park Units, water quality 

sampling sites, and stream gaging sites in relation to pollution sources including land 

application sites, landfills, NPDES point source sites, and town boundaries reflecting 

urban/suburban runoff (created by the NCSU CAAE). Streams officially recognized as 

water quality-impaired (303d-listed) are also indicated. .............................................................. 64

Figure 19. Map showing Section III of the park and indicating Park Units, water quality 

sampling sites, and stream gaging sites in relation to pollution sources including land 

application sites, landfills, NPDES point source sites, and town boundaries reflecting 

urban/suburban runoff (created by the NCSU CAAE). Streams officially recognized as 

water quality-impaired (303d-listed) are also indicated. .............................................................. 65
ix 

Figure 20. M ap showing Section IV (southernmost area) of the park and indicating Park 

Units, water quality sampling sites, and stream gaging sites in relation to pollution sources 

including land application sites, landfills, NPDES point source sites, and town boundaries 

reflecting urban/suburban runoff (created by the NCSU CAAE). Streams officially 

recognized as water quality-impaired (303d-listed) are also indicated ........................................ 66

Figure 21. Percentage of samples that exceeded recommended values (fecal coliforms and 

E. coli > 400 mpn/100 mL – U.S. EPA 2003; BOD5 > 3 mg/L – Mallin 2006; nutrients NOx

and TP > 100 μg/L – Mallin 2000; TSS > 25 mg/L – U.S. EPA 2000) for six water quality 

parameters, by section, over ~the past decade. ............................................................................. 67

Figure 22. Median total phosphorus (TP), nitrate+nitrite (NOx), and biochemical oxygen 

demand (five-day, BOD5), by station and Section, in the park during the past ~decade.............. 68

Figure 23. Median total suspended solids (TSS), fecal coliform densities (FC), and number 

of FC violations of the state standards, by station and Section, in the park during the past 

~decade. ........................................................................................................................................ 69

Figure 24. Number and percentage of months that fecal coliform samples violated state 

standards, considering data for which geometric means (gms) could be calculated. ................... 76

Figure 25. Data for Escherichia coli sampled daily by the MWA - Cobb County WTP, from 

September 2007 - March 2009. ..................................................................................................... 77

Figure 26. Relationship between turbidity and fecal bacteria in the Chattahoochee River 

near the Holcomb Bridge Park Unit. ............................................................................................. 78

Figure 27. Total coliforms and Escherichia coli fecal bacteria at Medlock Bridge and Paces 

Bridge from the Chattahoochee River in the park (Park Sections II and IV, respectively). ......... 78

Figure 28. Metropolitan Atlanta ozone – number of violation days per year from 1985 

through June 2006 ....................................................................................................................... 106

Figure 29. The fine-particulate (PM2.5) design value, daily standard at six sites with 

available data, showing exceedances of the old standard at sites in the Atlanta metropolitan 

area near the park, exceedances of the new standard in 2000-2003 in all sites for which data 

were available, exceedances of the new standard in 2002-2004 in Gwinnett County, and 

exceedances of the new standard in 2003-2005 at four of the six sites ...................................... 106

Figure 30. Statewide acid deposition trends. ............................................................................. 109

Figure 31. Historical population growth in the Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning 

District, which includes the study area (see Figure 32), from 1980 to (projected) 2035. .......... 114

Figure 32. Projected land use changes in the upper Chattahoochee River basin by 2030.. ....... 115 

 

xi 

Tables 

Page 

Table 1. Main street or highway access points for the 16 Park Units, listed proceeding from 

north to south along the Chattahoochee River .............................................................................. 10

Table 2. Land use (2000 data) in sub-watersheds affecting Park Section I (most upstream 

area; units 1-3, from Bowmans Island down to Settles Bridge) ................................................... 14

Table 3. Land use (2000 data) in sub-watersheds affecting Park Section II (units 4-8, from 

McGinnis Ferry down to Jones Bridge), and the mainstem Chattahoochee River in lower 

Section 2 through most of Section III (confluence with Johns Creek down to Morgan Falls, 

or from RM 329.3 down to RM 312.7) ........................................................................................ 15

Table 4a. Land use (2000 data) in sub-watersheds affecting Park Section III (Park Units 9-

11, from Holcomb Bridge down to Vickery Creek). .................................................................... 16

Table 4b. Land use (2000 data) in sub-watersheds affecting Park Section III (Park Units 12-

13, from Holcomb Bridge down to Vickery Creek), and also the mainstem Chattahoochee 

River in lower Section III (just above Johnson Ferry) through Section IV (Morgan Falls 

Dam downstream from Paces Mill, to Peachtree Creek, or from RM 329.3 down to RM 

312.7).. .......................................................................................................................................... 16

Table 5. Land use (2000 data) in sub-watersheds affecting Park Section IV (units 14-16, 

from Cochran Shoals down to Paces Mill). .................................................................................. 17

Table 6. Dams and impoundments along the Chattahoochee River that affect the park ............. 20

Table 7. USGS stream stations (discharge data) in recent operation in or nearest to the park 

(~7-mile radius), listed in order from north to south .................................................................... 22

Table 8. Acreage and relative abundance of major wetland types in the park, based upon the 

National Wetland Inventory maps of the U.S. FWS ..................................................................... 28

Table 9. Wetland and aquatic plant flora, excluding mosses and ferns, in the park, 

indicating predominant wetland vs. aquatic status. ...................................................................... 33

Table 10. Wetland and aquatic fern species that occur in the park .............................................. 38

Table 11. Available data for aquatic macroinvertebrate species present in the Park. .................. 40

Table 12. Macroinvertebrate community ratings and attributes .................................................. 45

Table 13. Fish species listed as present or probably present (*) in park waters emphasizing 

the Chattahoochee River, documented through one or more types of evidence as references, 

vouchers, and observations ........................................................................................................... 46
xii 

Table 14. Fish species found in three tributaries – Sope Creek, Rottenwood Creek, and 

Willeo Creek – of the Chattahoochee River in the park area in the early 1990s. ......................... 47

Table 15. Fish species in eight streams of the park area, sampled in October 2005 (Richland, 

Suwanee, and Crooked Creeks); 1999, 2005 and 2007 (Dick Creek); October - November 

2006 (Johns and Marsh Creeks); 1999 (Rottenwood Creek); and 1999 and 2004 (Little 

Nancy Creek) ................................................................................................................................ 49

Table 16. Fish IBI Scores, Biotic Integrity Classes, and associated attributes ........................... 50

Table 17. Herpetofauna of the park, documented through one or more types of evidence as 

references, vouchers, and observations ......................................................................................... 52

Table 18. Bird species that have been observed at the park ......................................................... 54

Table 19. Mammalian species listed as occurring at the park ...................................................... 56

Table 20. Abundant and common invasive exotic higher plant species in the park .................... 59

Table 21. Synopsis of water quality sampling in the park area over the past decade .................. 70

Table 22. Water quality guidelines (reference condition, 25th percentile) for some 

potentially toxic metals (total concentration, in μg/L) in freshwater streams of SECN parks, 

including CHATT ......................................................................................................................... 73

Table 23. Summary of the percentage of the total samples per station with unacceptable 

water quality conditions, and the parameter(s) involved .............................................................. 74

Table 24. Potable WTPs in the existing park area and just upstream and downstream from it, 

and planned increased capacity by 2030 ....................................................................................... 81

Table 25. The 14 point source contributors that discharge 0.25 mgd or more in the park area 

above Peachtree Creek, and violations of permit compliance during the past ~three years (Jul 

05 - Jun 08). .................................................................................................................................. 89

Table 26. Mean concentrations of pollutants in precipitation events, depending upon the 

amount of impervious surface area ............................................................................................... 90

Table 27. Superfund sites within five miles of the park ............................................................... 91

Table 28. Land application sites (LAS, with permit numbers) and landfills (L; or sanitary 

landfill, SL, also indicating whether still operational and if not, when operations ceased) in 

the park area. ................................................................................................................................. 91

Table 29. Georgia water use classifications and in-stream water quality standards for each 

use ................................................................................................................................................. 93
xiii 

Table 30. Surface water quality sampling stations and status (+ impaired, and parameter(s) 

causing impairment) in the outfall area of Lake Lanier and the park area (within about 5 

miles upstream from the park, considering four sections containing the 16 Park Units). ............ 97

Table 31. Estimated contribution of land use type to sediment loading in Long Island Creek 

and Suwanee Creek, the two streams that are impaired because of suspended sediment 

loading........................................................................................................................................... 99

Table 32. TMDLs developed for the mainstem Chattahoochee River and tributaries in the 

park area ...................................................................................................................................... 101

Table 33. U.S. EPA standards for six “criteria” pollutants as required by the Clean Air Act, 

indicating recent modifications ................................................................................................... 103

Table 34. Georgia air sampling station locations in the general airshed of the park during 

2006, and parameters monitored (most recent available information). ...................................... 105

Table 35. Air releases (as of 2000 and thus, somewhat outdated) by five coal-fired power 

plants, within ~3 to 65 miles from the park, that can affect the park’s air quality .................... 107

Table 36. U.S. EPA’s Air Quality Index (AQI) criteria. ............................................................ 109

Table 37. U.S. EPA air quality index (AQI) for the Atlanta metropolitan area in 2006 ............ 110

Table 38. Present-day and potential stressors that are affecting or may affect the park’s 

natural resources ........................................................................................................................ 119

Table A2-1. Water quality data for source water and Park Section I (Units 1-3). ..................... 164

Table A2-2. Water quality data for Park Section II (Units 4-8) ................................................. 169

Table A2-3. Water quality data for Park Section III (Units 9-13) ............................................. 175

Table A2-4. Water quality data for Park Section IV (Units 14-16) ........................................... 183

Table A3-1. Fecal coliform (FC) and Escherichia coli (EC) data sampled with sufficient 

frequency to calculate gms (units, mpn or colonies or cfu/100 mL – see Appendix 2). ............ 191

Table A4-1. Sampling duration/frequency for water quality stations in and near CHATT, 

and number/ percent of samples indicating unacceptable water quality conditions .................. 200

xv 

Plates 

Page 

Plate 1. A beautiful public trust resource: the Chattahoochee River viewed from various 

Park Units........................................................................................................................................ 4

Plate 2. Photos concerning Hyde Farm, the most recent land acquisition of the park: (left 

top) Mr. J.C. Hyde and his mule Nell, who farmed the land until Mr. Hyde’s death in 2004; 

(left bottom) Members of the Friends of Hyde Park in 2001. This concerned citizens group, 

the Triangle Land Trust, the NPS, and state and federal legislators worked for many years to 

protect the farm from development. (right) View of the Chattahoochee River from Hyde 

Farm. ............................................................................................................................................... 5

Plate 3. Left – Lake Lanier and Buford Falls Dam, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Digital 

Visual Library. Right – Close-up of the dam ............................................................................... 20

Plate 4. The Morgan Falls Dam on the Chattahoochee River at river mile 312.6 between 

Park Units 12 (Gold Branch) and 13 (Johnson Ferry). ................................................................. 20

Plate 5. Wetland at Bowmans Island during a low-water period (upper panel); and Bull 

Sluice Lake and an adjacent wetland in the Gold Branch Park Unit (middle and lower 

panels). .......................................................................................................................................... 28

Plate 6. Eutrophic tailwater in the Chattahoochee River just below Buford Dam and 0.2 mile 

downstream (left and right panels, respectively). The olive green cast reflects the presence of 

a cyanobacterial bloom, which was confirmed by light microscopy. ........................................... 30

Plate 7. Upper Chattahoochee River two miles downstream from Buford Dam, 

photographed on the same date in November 2006 and showing little evidence of the 

upstream cyanobacterial bloom. ................................................................................................... 31

Plate 8. Some wetland flora in the park. ...................................................................................... 32

Plate 9. Scenes from the Buford Hatchery. .................................................................................. 50

Plate 10. Snag (Island Ford) and boulder/riffle habitats (Cochran Shoals) in park waters.. ........ 50

Plate 11. Some anglers in park waters.. ........................................................................................ 51

Plate 12. Evidence of beaver damage to vegetation in park wetlands. This photo was taken 

at a 47-acre wetland restoration project at the Johnson Ferry Park Unit. ..................................... 57

Plate 13. Three invasive exotic species in the park, including (left to right) the Asian clam; 

the Asian swamp eel; and the red shiner. ...................................................................................... 60

Plate 14. The Cobb-Marietta Water Authority’s water treatment plant at Johnson Ferry on 

the Chattahoochee River. ............................................................................................................. 80
xvi 

Plate 15. Examples of an urban garbage portfolio in park streams, a common site because of 

the surrounding urbanization: Willeo Creek at Gold Branch (upper panel), Powers Island at 

Cochran Shoals (middle panel), and Long Island Creek at Palisades (lower panel). ................... 83

Plate 16. Streams degraded by sediment loading at Bowmans Island. ........................................ 84

Plate 17. Suwanee Creek: (a) Upstream from its confluence with the Chattahoochee River, 

showing degradation from high sediment loading; (b) at its confluence with the mainstem 

Chattahoochee River (Suwanee Creek is in the foreground). . .................................................... 84

Plate 18. Spray field for municipal sludge near McGinnis Ferry; the park and the 

Chattahoochee River are in the background behind the trees.. ..................................................... 85

Plate 19. Treated sewage bubbling into the Chattahoochee River from an outfall diffuser 

area in the Holcomb Bridge Park Unit at the Horseshoe Bend Country Club. Note 

responding algal growth (top panel) and a canoeist in the background (center panel). ................ 87

Plate 20. Examples of the numerous sewer pipes that traverse or empty into park waters, 

including (a) Gold Branch – Willeo Creek, (b) Suwanee Creek – turbid Suwanee Creek at its 

confluence with the Chattahoochee River, (c-e) Vickery Creek, and (f) Cochran Shoals 

showing straight-pipe runoff into the Chattahoochee River.. ....................................................... 88

Plate 21. In-stream mining operation near river mile 317.5 on the Chattahoochee River in 

the park.......................................................................................................................................... 92

Plate 22. Haw Creek near the northern edge of the park, showing high turbidity, excessive 

sedimentation, and other urban debris.. ........................................................................................ 96

Plate 23. Construction of a new wastewater treatment plant (upper panel) at Holcomb 

Bridge on the Chattahoochee River, including a clear violation of sediment erosion control 

regulations (lower panel). ......................................................................................................... 102

Plate 24. Sign posted by the NPS, warning of human health hazard from high fecal coliform 

bacteria in the Chattahoochee River in the Park.. ....................................................................... 113

Plate 25. Informal, unmaintained “social trail” immediately adjacent to the park, also 

showing a home from an adjacent low-density housing development. .................................... 116

Plate 26. Erosion of a park path near Willeo Creek. .................................................................. 117
xvii 

Appendices 

Page 

Appendix 1. USGS discharge and stream height data for the Chattahoochee River and 

tributaries in or within ~five miles upstream from the park, considering active or recently 

maintained stations ...................................................................................................................... 139

Appendix 2. Available data for water quality conditions at or near the park over the past 

~decade, also indicating unacceptable conditions. ..................................................................... 161

Appendix 3. Fecal coliform data – geometric means (gms). ..................................................... 191

Appendix 4. Available WQ data (past ~decade) and percentage of samples indicating 

unacceptable conditions, evaluated using the criteria from Appendix 1. ................................... 200

Appendix 5. Georgia Water Quality Standards for all Waters: Toxic Substances .................... 212

Appendix 6. Criteria for classification of major lakes and tributaries as meeting or not 

meeting their designated uses. .................................................................................................... 217
xviii 
Acknowledgments 

This study was funded by the National Park Service, Southeast Coast Network. In addition to 

the individuals listed as interviewed, we extend special thanks to Eva DiDonato and Joe DeVivo 

of the National Park Service and Michael Mallin of the University of North Carolina Wilmington 

for facilitation and many helpful review comments. 

Special thanks are also extended to Rick Slade, Chief of Science and Resource Management at 

the park; Chris Hughes, Natural Resource Management Specialist; and Alex Reynolds, formerly 

a Staff Biologist at the park, for their kindness in providing helpful counsel and insights. They 

kindly shared their extensive knowledge of the park and surrounding watershed. In addition, 

they directed us to some of the exceptional resources within the park including major 

confluences, overlooks, high-use areas, and other points of interest, as well as significant impact 

areas outside the park such as new developments, sewage treatment plant outfalls, and dredging 

operations. They also were instrumental in arranging for Report coauthor Eric Morris to float a 

section of the river free of charge with a local outfitter. Coauthor Morris merits special mention 

here as well for his perseverance in collecting information and taking many helpful photographs 

despite the fact that his car was broken into while he was conducting that reconnaissance and his 

$2,000 camera was stolen – testament to the spillover crime affecting the park. 

We are grateful, as well, to the following colleagues: At the NPS, Sara McCort provided GIS 

shapefiles for the park boundaries, hydrology, trails, and places; and Allison Hughs provided 

spatial information for water quality source locations such as land application sites, landfills, and 

surface mining operations. Stacie Flood used GIS to produce the land use/land cover maps for 

the upper Chattahoochee River basin, and assisted in generating maps of water quality site 

location. Liz Kramer, director of U-GA NARSAL, kindly confirmed that the GA DNR-EPD 

would be the best source for land use information. Susan Grams, Supervisor Hydrologist at the 

USGS – Georgia Water Science Center, verified station locations; Paul Ankcorn, Hydrologist, 

provided corrected water quality data; and Tony Gotvald, Hydrologist, provided corrected 

discharge data. 

Michael Basmajian of the GA DNR-EPD Watershed Protection Branch – Ambient Monitoring

provided counsel on water quality station locations and the status of water quality sampling. 

Barbara Stitt-Allen, GIS Branch Coordinator – Water Protection Branch provided draft NPDES 

discharge data. At GA DNR-WRD, Perry Thompson, the Trout Stocking Coordinator, sent 

stocking statistics for Lake Lanier tailwaters and Chris Martin, Acting Regional Supervisor, 

provided trout fishery information for the Chattahoochee River below Buford Dam. Bill Couch, 

Buford Trout Hatchery Manager, also provided helpful counsel. 

Barbara Seal, of Gwinnett County’s Department of Water Resources – Stormwater Management, 

provided helpful insights about stormwater permitting requirements and sent county water 

quality and biological monitoring data. Steve Dempsey, Stormwater Supervisor of Forsyth 

County, and Lauren Murphy, Environmental Scientist at CH2M Hill, provided Forsyth County 

water quality and biological monitoring data. Water quality information from the City of 

Roswell’s Big Creek Water Treatment Plant was provided by Mike Leonard, the Plant 

Superintendent. Water quality data and other information from Cobb County’s James E. Quarles 

water treatment plant were provided by Terry Wilson (from the water treatment plant), and by 
xx 

Karen Osborne from the Marietta Water Authority. Information about water quality monitoring 

by the Atlanta-Fulton County Water Treatment Plant was sent by Kathy Crews, the plant’s 

General Manager. Andy Mycroft, Stormwater Program Manager of Fulton County, and Kim Ajy 

and Amanda Lester of R2T, Inc. sent water quality and biological monitoring data. Erin 

Feichtner and Adam Sukenick of the Cobb County Watershed Monitoring Program, and William 

Norris of the Stormwater Management section provided Cobb County water quality data. Jay 

Jones, Senior Chemist at DeKalb County’s Scott Candler Water Treatment Plant, provided water 

quality data and other information from that water treatment plant. Water quality data and other 

information from the Atlanta-Fulton County Water Treatment Plant were provided by Kathy 

Crews, the Plant’s General Manager. 
xxi 

Abbreviations 

ARC – Atlanta Regional Commission 

AQI – Air Quality Index (of the U.S. EPA) 

brl – below reporting limit 

BOD5 – biochemical oxygen demand (five-day testing duration) 

CAAE – Center for Applied Aquatic Ecology (of North Carolina State University, NCSU) 

Cd - cadmium 

cfs – cubic feet per second 

cfu – colony-forming units 

CCC – criterion continuous concentration (of the U.S. EPA) 

CEC – chemical environmental contaminant 

CMC – criterion maximum concentration (of the U.S. EPA) 

CO2 – carbon dioxide, a major greenhouse gas contributing to global warming 

COD – chemical oxygen demand 

Cr – chromium 

Cu – copper 

DIP – dissolved inorganic phosphorus 

DO – dissolved oxygen 

DOC – dissolved organic carbon 

DON – dissolved organic nitrogen 

DOP – dissolved organic phosphorus 

DP – dissolved organic phosphorus 

EC – type of culture medium used to assess fecal coliform densities with a multiple-tube 

 procedure 

ECHO ICIS – Enforcement and Compliance History Online Integrated Compliance Information 

 System (of the U.S. EPA) 

EIS – environmental impact statement 

EPD – Environmental Protection Division (of GA DNR) 

FC – fecal coliforms 

FEMA – Federal Emergency Management Agency 

FS – fecal streptococci 

ft – foot or feet 

GA – Georgia 

GA DAA – Georgia Department of Audits and Accounts 

GA DNR – Georgia Department of Natural Resources 

GA DOT – Georgia Department of Transportation 

GBP – Georgia Bioassessment Protocol 

GIS – Geographic Information System 

gm (gms) – geometric mean(s) 

gpd – gallons per day 

gpm – gallons per minute 

Hg – mercury 

IPCC – United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 

lat. – latitude 

long. – longitude 
xxii 

m – meter 

MF – membrane filter (refers to a technique for analysis of fecal coliform densities, also using 

 M-FC medium) 

M-FC – type of culture medium for assessment of fecal coliform densities (see above) 

mgd – million gallons per day 

mg/L – milligrams per liter (= parts per million, ppm) 

MPN – most probable number (pertaining to fecal bacteria) 

MNGWPD – Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District 

μg/L – micrograms per liter (= parts per billion, ppb) 

MPN – most probable number 

MS4 – municipal separate storm sewer system 

N – nitrogen (nutrient; excessive enrichment can degrade water quality) 

NAAQS – National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

NARSAL – Natural Resources Spatial Analysis Laboratory 

NH3 – ammonia (gaseous form; can be an air or water pollutant) 

NH4

+

N – ammonium (inorganic form of nitrogen, ionized from ammonia; excessive enrichment 

 can degrade water quality 

NO3

-

 + NO2

-

 – nitrate + nitrite (inorganic forms of nitrogen; excessive enrichment can degrade 

water quality) 

NOx – in waters, refers to nitrate + nitrite 

NOx or NOy – in the atmosphere, a “catch-all” term for all reactive oxides of nitrogen 

NP – nonpoint 

NPCA – National Parks Conservation Association 

NPDES – National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 

NPS – National Park Service 

NTU – nephelometric turbidity units 

NWIS – National Water Information System (of the USGS) 

P - phosphorus (nutrient; excessive enrichment can degrade water quality) 

PAMS - Photochemical Assessment Monitoring Stations (for air quality) 

park – the Chattahoochee River National Recreation Area 

Pb – lead 

PCS – Permit Compliance System (of the U.S. EPA) 

PM2.5 – particulate matter, diameter < 2.5 μm (air pollutant) 

PM10 – particulate matter, diameter < 10 μm (air pollutant) 

QA/QC – quality assurance/quality control (refers to standardized procedures for ensuring 

 acceptable quality of data) 

SECN – Southeast Coast Network of the National Park Service 

SO2 – sulfur dioxide (air pollutant) 

spec. cond. – specific conductivity 

SPOC – species of concern 

sq. mi. – square mile(s) 

SRP – soluble reactive phosphate 

STORET – STOrage and RETrieval Environmental Data System (of the U.S. EPA) 

strep – streptococci (type of fecal bacteria) 

sv – single value 
xxiii 

SVOC – semi-volatile organic compounds, also called polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (air 

 pollutants) 

TDP – total dissolved phosphorus 

TDS – total dissolved solids 

TKN – total Kjeldahl nitrogen 

TM – trace metal 

TMDL – total maximum daily load 

TP – total phosphorus 

TSS – total suspended solids 

USACE – United States Army Corps of Engineers 

USDA – United States Department of Agriculture 

USDI – United States Department of the Interior 

U.S. EPA – United States Environmental Protection Agency 

U.S. FWS – United States Fish and Wildlife Service 

USGS – United States Geological Survey 

USGS NAWQA – United States Geological Survey National Water Quality Assessment 

 Program 

VOC – volatile organic compound 

WC – water column 

WPCP – water pollution control plant (wastewater treatment plants) 

WQ – water quality 

WTP – water treatment plant (drinking water) 

WRD – Wildlife Resources Division (of GA DNR) 

WUI – Wildland-Urban Interface

xxv 

Executive Summary 

The purpose of this report was to locate and assess existing information pertaining to the water 

quality in and around the Chattahoochee River National Recreation Area (the park), assess the 

present and likely future water conditions of the park, and make recommendations to fill existing 

information gaps. Water quality and quantity, habitat issues, the potential for invasive species, 

trends in park resource use, and watershed influences and other stressors were addressed insofar 

as possible through available data and first-hand observations. 

The park is relatively large (6,500 acres, with maximum potential area of 10,000 acres depending 

upon land acquisitions) but highly fragmented, presently consisting of 16 non-contiguous units 

along a 48-mile reach of the Chattahoochee River from Buford Dam at Lake Lanier downstream 

to the northwestern area of the City of Atlanta, Georgia. This river park is of vital importance to 

the greater Atlanta metropolitan area, providing about 75% of the area’s remaining green space. 

The river in the park area alone has more than three million visitors per year, and is the most 

intensely used stream segment in the state. It sustains rainbow trout and brown trout put-andtake fisheries, with a trout hatchery at the northern end of the park, and some tributaries have 

supported trout reproduction. The Chattahoochee River also supplies about 75% of the drinking 

water for the Atlanta metropolitan area. 

Nevertheless, relentless increasing development characterizes the Chattahoochee River 

watershed including the area immediately surrounding the park. The entire corridor of this river 

park, and beyond it to the north surrounding Lake Lanier, is sustaining rapid growth of housing, 

commercial development, and roads and other infrastructure while older sewage treatment plants 

and sewer pipes in developed areas frequently overflow or leak. The resulting chronic water 

quality degradation includes high fecal coliform bacterial densities, high suspended sediment 

loads, high concentrations of various toxic substances (especially PCBs, lead, cadmium, copper, 

and zinc), and increased summer water temperatures. Lake Lanier, the source water for the 

Chattahoochee River segments including the park, is now a repository for treated sewage from 

Atlanta. Its elevated nutrient loading stimulates blooms of potentially toxic cyanobacteria. 

Much of the mainstem Chatthoochee River and most of its major tributaries in the park area are 

officially listed as impaired waters that cannot meet their designated uses for drinking water 

supplies, fishing and/or recreation. Yet, unchecked development continues to escalate. Not 

surprisingly, water supply is another major issue that is significantly affecting the park’s natural 

resources, and is projected to more seriously affect them within the next decade. 

The park’s dramatically beautiful river corridor, with its rocky bluffs and wide river shoals, still 

has a rich flora of terrestrial, wetland and aquatic plants. However, at least ten native fish 

species and most shellfish species which once were abundant in park waters apparently have 

been extirpated, including some endangered species. In contrast, diverse exotic/invasive plant 

and animal species thrive in both terrestrial and aquatic/wetland habitats of the park. 

The overall assessment of this Report is that the natural and resources of the park are being 

significantly impacted by upstream and encroaching urbanization, and by the multitude of water 

and air pollutants and other stressors associated with rapid human population growth, land 

development, and natural resource degradation and destruction in the Atlanta metropolitan area. 

The already-high and increasing impervious surface area in the watershed has resulted in 
xxvi 

increased floodplain areas for some streams because of increased stormwater runoff, resulting in 

severe stream bank erosion, loss of land and vegetation, and other damage. Surrounded by this 

intensive urbanization which is actively favored by various powerful entities, the NPS has an 

especially difficult challenge to meet its charge of preserving and protecting this park for present 

and future generations. The already-formidable task is exacerbated by the inadequate approach 

that presently characterizes water quality monitoring of the Chattahoochee River and its 

tributaries in the park area. Since the turn of the century – for almost a decade, now – even the 

most basic monitoring efforts have been left almost entirely to the counties, along with limited 

sampling by the federal USGS in partnership with the state environmental agency, and extremely 

limited sampling by the state environmental agency itself. 

The available data are compelling, nonetheless: Even piecemeal water samples taken twice per 

year or once per quarter show, over time, degraded conditions with a high frequency of 

violations of the state water quality standards or federally recommended guidelines for fecal 

coliform bacteria, toxic metals, nutrient enrichment, sediment loading, and biochemical oxygen 

demand. When water-column toxic metal concentrations are excessive – given that most toxic 

metals rapidly leave the water column and accumulate in the sediments, which have gone 

uncharacterized – a “flag is up” that points to serious, chronic water pollution problems. 

The airshed surrounding and over the park contributes to this pervasive water pollution: It 

sustains among the highest CO2, NOx, fine particulate, and SO2 emissions in the entire country, 

mostly from various coal-fired power plants including two of the largest in the world. The 

airshed is in violation of federal ozone and fine particulate standards, which threatens the health 

of park staff and frequent visitors, and the high ozone concentrations likely are damaging 

terrestrial and wetland foliage. The park also lies in an area that is prone to atmospheric acid 

deposition, and acidification, especially acid spates, likely is adversely affecting its terrestrial, 

wetland and aquatic resources. 

Other stressors to the park’s natural and historic resources are related to encroaching 

urbanization, including the illicit dumping of trash and other refuse, erosion/washout of hiking 

trails that receive heavy use, noise pollution, light pollution, the urban island heat effect of 

increased temperatures, and spillover crime from Atlanta. 

Recommendations 

The following recommendations, which can be addressed within NPS jurisdiction, address 

pressing needs to help restore and improve protection of the seriously degraded, ecologically and 

economically valuable water resources and other natural resources of this park. These major 

recommendations are based upon the past ca. decade of information as described in this Report. 

Also considered are as-yet unaddressed or only partially addressed recommendations, still highly 

germane, that were put forth in the Chattahoochee Water Management Plan of 2000 (Kunkle and 

Vana-Miller 2000) and in NPS (2004a). 

 A top priority is to conduct a one-year sampling program in park surface waters including 

the Chattahoochee River and its major tributaries with biweekly or, at a minimum, 

monthly sampling frequency. At least two stations in each of the four sections of the 

park and at least one station on each tributary should be sampled for, at a minimum, 

water temperature, pH, dissolved oxygen, suspended solids, turbidity, nutrients (TN, TP, 
xxvii 

nitrate, ammonium, BOD5), fecal coliform densities, enterococci bacteria, and 

chlorophyll a concentrations. This effort should be repeated at three-year intervals. This 

program should include additional monitoring of representative storm events because 

they are known to contribute most nonpoint source pollution from urban runoff and other 

sources.* 

 Once per year during an appropriate seasonal timeframe, the fish and macroinvertebrates 

(benthic fauna, aquatic insects) should be assessed at these stations.* 

 Data should be collected at least quarterly on toxic substance concentrations in sediments 

and fish tissues. Parameters of focus should include, at a minimum, cadmium, copper, 

lead, zinc, mercury, and PCBs.* 

 The NPS developed a bacterial water quality monitoring program, BacteriALERT, to 

help safeguard human health safety in the park’s recreational waters. BacteriALERT 

includes a system that displays water pollution and water quality information, although 

limited to fecal bacteria and turbidity. The program, originally with three stations, is now 

down to two, and three had been inadequate to accomplish the program goal. This 

important program needs to be expanded strategically to include additional stations in 

park waters.* 

 As a fifth top priority, data from the above three recommendations should be used to 

prioritize restoration of degraded areas, and to identify the major actions that will be 

needed.* 

 As a sixth priority, updated economic evaluation is needed of the recreational value of the 

park, including the economic threat of water quality degradation.* 

 Some of the major existing sources of water quality impacts on the park’s aquatic 

resources have been identified in this Report. Inventory of other major sources of water 

pollution, for which computerized information mostly is not available, is needed for 

septic tanks in large-scale subdivisions, new highway projects, numerous new shopping 

centers, and other sources that are being added through the rapid surrounding increase in 

urbanization and urban sprawl. The data should be used to create GIS maps of these 

sources, and these maps can be upgraded to help the NPS track pollution and its impacts 

in park waters. 

 The NPS should confer with the USACE and other agencies to evaluate the effects of the 

Tri-State Water Allocation Formula, once approved and applied, to assess whether the 

allocated flows are sufficient to support recreation and healthy fisheries in the park. 

 The NPS should also work with the USACE to address more effectively the bank 

sloughing problem caused by hydroelevation surge flows. 

 Wetlands in each Park Unit should be more clearly delineated and described. Large-scale 

as well as more detailed maps are needed, and wetland vegetation should be inventoried. 
xxviii 

 A sampling program is needed to establish present conditions and track exotic/invasive 

species, and assess the ongoing status of their impacts on aquatic and wetland resources 

in the park, so that park staff can develop active management strategies to optimize 

control.* 

 The streams in Park Units nearest the Buford Dam (especially Bowmans Island) should 

be monitored for stream bank erosion from water release activities, and for tree damage. 

 The NPS should assess incidence of foliar injury to park plants from ozone pollution, 

including common wetland bioindicator species such as yellow poplar and American 

elder. More generally, data are needed to assess the extent to which air pollution is 

affecting the park, and to forecast how increasing air pollution from the greater Atlanta 

metropolitan area will affect its waters and other natural resources.* 

 The park should continue to work to strengthen education outreach to teach visitors about 

the importance of greenspaces such as this park in ecosystem sustainability.* 
1 

Park Description 

Background 

Location, Size, and Boundaries 

The Chattahoochee River National Recreation Area (the park, ~6,500 acres, elevation 700 – 

1,000 ft) is a highly fragmented park consisting of 16 non-contiguous units along a 48-mile 

linear corridor of the Chattahoochee River, from Buford Dam at Lake Lanier downstream to the 

northwestern area of the City of Atlanta (NPS 2008a; Figures 1 and 2). The Park Units are 

located in four counties (Forsyth, Fulton, Cobb, Gwinnett), along with one tributary in Dekalb 

County (Figure 2). The park is surrounded by rapidly developing urban and suburban areas 

(NPS 2008a), and it provides about 75% of the green space in the greater Atlanta metropolitan 

area (population ~4 million); another NPS park, Kennesaw Mountain National Battlefield Park, 

provides most of the remainder (Kunkle and Vana-Miller 2000). The Chattahoochee River and 

its riparian environment are the major outdoor recreation attraction in the Atlanta area, including 

four counties and a small portion of a fifth, for more than three million visitors per year, many of 

whom use the Park Units for hiking, fishing, picnicking, boating, nature study, and other outdoor 

activities (Kunkle and Vana-Miller 2000). In fact, the segment of the river including the park 

has been described as the most intensely used stream segment in Georgia (Atlanta Regional 

Commission 1992a). The Atlanta Regional Commission (1992b) describes the river as a “thread 

of nature running through a bustling, growing major metropolitan area, offering an irreplaceable 

asset that adds immensely to Atlanta’s quality of life”. The entire park area is severely affected 

by urban impacts and continued urban sprawl. 

The primary purpose of the original park was to recognize the beautiful scenery of unique cliff 

features associated with the Palisades area, formed by continental drift associated with the 

Brevard Fault (Plate 1) (NPS 2008b). The park lies in an upland area of moderately strong relief. 

The park consists of beautiful cliffs along the river, gorges, rock outcroppings, rivers shoals, and 

surrounding native forested uplands. Certain cultural resources such as a major Native American 

rock shelter and historic industrial mill sites are also present. The 16 Park Units along the 

Chattahoochee are shown, together with major tributaries, in Figures 3-6, with information on 

latitudes and longitudes and access points given in Table 1. A recent major land acquisition, 

Hyde Farm (adjacent to the western boundary of Park Unit #13; see Figure 5, Plate 2) and the 

NPS’ top priority for land purchase for the park, was secured in 2008 by the national 

conservation organization, the Trust for Public Land (135 acres in total; 40 acres acquired in 

1993, and the remaining 95 acres purchased for $14.2 million in 2008). The Trust for Public 

Land will convey the land to Cobb County and the NPS under a joint cooperative management 

plan for the site. Hyde Farm is a historic working farm, one of the last remaining near Atlanta, 

initiated in the 1920s and including a log cabin from the Power family who settled there in the 

1830s. The site is expected to be opened to the general public in late 2009. 
2 

Figure 1. Map of the Atlanta area, showing the general park area (although not contiguous) as well as 

two other NPS entities, Kennesaw Mountain National Battlefield Park, and the Ocmulgee National 

Monument. From NPS (2008a). 

History of the Park 

The word “Chattahoochee” means painted rock in the Cherokee language (NPS 2008b). The 

Cherokee Indians had settlements along the Chattahoochee River for thousands of years until 

they were forced out in the early 1800s (NPS 2008b). In the early 1970s, a group of local 

citizens who understood the value of the Chattahoochee River to the state and were concerned 

about signs of water quality degradation, sought public protection for its preservation (Kunkle 

and Vana-Miller 2000). Congressional response was followed by then-President Jimmy Carter’s 

signing of a bill to create the park in recognition of its scenic vistas, urban location, geologic 

features, and biodiversity. The enabling legislation (PL 95-344, HR 8336, 1978) authorized land 

acquisition of 6,300 acres at sites along the Chattahoochee River from the Lake Lanier dam 

downstream to northern Atlanta at the mouth of Peachtree Creek (Figures 2-6) (NPS 2008a). 

The legislation also authorized the NPS in a major role to manage the park’s natural resources 

and “protect the river’s natural, scenic, recreation, historic and other values...from development 

and uses which would substantially impair or destroy them” (U.S. Congress, 1978 in NPS 

2008a). 
3 

Figure 2. Overview map of the park in the five-county area (Cobb, Fulton, Forsyth, Gwinnett, and 

Dekalb), showing locations of the 16 present-day Park Units, Lake Lanier, the Chattahoochee River, 

various tributaries, and watershed boundaries. Modified from Kunkle and Vana-Miller (2000). 

The park’s authorized boundaries have since been expanded twice. In 1984, Public Law 98-568 

was enacted to the authorized boundary to 6,800 acres (Kunkle and Vana-Miller 2000), and 

clarified that the park was established to “facilitate Federal technical and other support to State 

and local governments to assist State and local efforts to protect the scenic, recreational, and 

natural values of a 2,000-foot-wide corridor adjacent to each bank of the Chattahoochee River 

and its impoundments in the 48-mile segment.” The 1984 law also declared the park to be an 

area of national concern. In 1999, another federal public law (PL 106-154, Sec. I, 106 Stat. 

1736) enables the park’s authorized boundaries to expand to 10,000 acres (NPS 2008a), if funds 

can be acquired for land purchase. This law recognized that the park is a nationally significant 

resource that has been adversely affected by land use changes inside and outside the park; and 
4 

that “the population of the metropolitan Atlanta area continues to expand northward, leaving 

dwindling opportunities to protect the scenic, recreational, natural, and historical values of the 

2,000-foot-wide corridor adjacent to each bank of the Chattahoochee River and its 

impoundments in the 48-mile segment known as the ‘area of national concern’. Thus, Park

technically means the waters of the Chattahoochee River, to the maximum extent of the high 

water mark (“bank to bank”), from Buford Dam to the confluence of the Chattahoochee River 

with Peachtree Creek and the land units along it as defined in the enabling legislation (NPS 

1989). There remains a major difference, however, between authorization and reality: the 

present-day 16 Park Units, covered in this Report, extend only as far south as Little Nancy 

Creek, about three miles north of the confluence of the Chattahoochee River with Peachtree 

Creek, with a total land area of only about 6,500 acres (Kunkle and Vana-Miller 2000). 

Plate 1. A beautiful public trust resource: the Chattahoochee River viewed from various Park Units. 
5 

The state of Georgia had earlier (1973) enacted the Metropolitan River Protection Act (Georgia 

Code 12-5-440) to ensure protection of this corridor, or the corridor located within the 100-year 

floodplain, whichever is larger. The 100-year floodplain corridor includes the area of national 

concern. The 1999 federal legislation noted that the state and political subdivisions of the state 

along the Chattahoochee River had “indicated willingness to join in a cooperative effort with the 

federal government to link existing units of the recreation area through a series of linear 

corridors to be established within the area of national concern and elsewhere on the river”. 

However, expansion of the park to 10,000 acres resulted from more than 15 years of 

coordination by the NPS in cooperation with the Trust for Public Land and other private 

organizations. Non-federal land holdings within the expanded park boundary (Figures 2-6) can 

only be acquired by the NPS if the owners are “willing sellers”. The NPS is under negotiation 

with various landowners in attempts to acquire additional parcels as funding becomes available 

(NPS 2008a). 

Plate 2. Photos concerning Hyde Farm, the most recent land acquisition of the park: (left top) Mr. J.C. 

Hyde and his mule Nell, who farmed the land until Mr. Hyde’s death in 2004; (left bottom) Members of the 

Friends of Hyde Park in 2001. This concerned citizens group, the Triangle Land Trust, the NPS, and state 

and federal legislators worked for many years to protect the farm from development. (right) View of the 

Chattahoochee River from Hyde Farm. Photos by N. Arroyo (top left) and A. Sharp (bottom left and right), 

with permission from the Atlanta Journal - Constitution).
6 

Figure 3. Section I of the park, designated for this Report – the three northernmost park Units Bowman’s 

Island, Orrs Ferry, and Settles Bridge; the Lake Lanier source water for the mainstem Chattahoochee 

River in the park area; and major tributaries Haw Creek, Richland Creek, James Creek, Level Creek, and 

Dick Creek (note that the area south of the diagonal line is in Section II). Also shown: 1 GA DNR-EPD 

water quality sampling site (near the outflow of Lake Lanier), 2 Forsyth County sites, 2 Gwinnett 

County/USGS water quality sites, 1 USGS water quality site, and 3 USGS gaging stations. Note: In 

Figures 2-5, the private land within the park boundary would have to be purchased by the NPS to become 

part of the park. Modified from NPS (2008b); Sections I-IV (Figures 3-6) collectively include 48 miles of 

the Chattahoochee River. 

 
7 

Figure 4. Section II of the park proceeding south, showing Park Units 4-7 as McGinnis Ferry, Suwanee 

Creek, Abbotts Bridge, Medlock Bridge, and all but the southern end of Park Unit # 8, Jones Bridge; and 

Chattahoochee River tributaries Suwanee Creek and Johns Creek. Also shown are 3 GA DNR-EPD 

water quality sampling sites, 1 Forsyth County Site, 1 Gwinnett County/USGS site, 2 Fulton County sites, 

2 UGSG gaging stations, 1 water treatment plant (WTP) site, and 1 BacteriALERT site. Modified from 

NPS (2008b). 
8 

Figure 5. Section III of the park proceeding south, showing the southern end of Park Unit #8, and Units 9-

13 as Holcomb Bridge, Island Ford, Vickery Creek, Gold Branch, and Johnson Ferry (the latter including 

Hyde Farm, acquired in 2008); the Chattahoochee River Environmental Education Center (CREEC – in 

the southern area of Park Unit 8); and Chattahoochee River tributaries Crooked Creek, Vickery Creek, 

and March Creek, as well as Bull Sluice Lake and the Morgan Falls Dam. Also shown are 5 GA DNREPD water quality sampling sites, 2 Fulton County sites, 1 Cobb County site, 2 USGS water quality sites 

(1of these also a Gwinnett County site), 4 USGS gaging stations (a fifth site, USGS 02335700, Big Creek 

at Alpharetta, is out of the field of view – see Figure 19), 1 water quality site maintained by the City of 

Alpharetta, 3 WTP sites, and 1 BacteriALERT site. Modified from NPS (2008b). 
9 

Figure 6. Section IV of the park – southernmost Park Units 14-16 as Cochran Shoals, Palisades, and 

Paces Mill; and Chattahoochee River tributaries Sope Creek, Long Island Creek, Rottenwood Creek, and 

Little Nancy Creek. Also shown are 3 GA DNR-EPD water quality sampling sites, 1 Fulton County site, 4 

Cobb County sites, 1 BacteriALERT site, and 2 USGS gaging stations. Modified from NPS (2008b).
10 

Table 1. Main street or highway access points for the 16 Park Units, listed proceeding from north to south 

along the Chattahoochee River (Rm = river mile; latitudes and longitudes from approximately the central 

portion of each Park Unit). Modified from Kunkle and Vana-Miller (2000). 

Park Unit Location Description

Park Section I

1) Bowman’s Island Latitude 34.1432 

Longitude -84.0812 

Rm ~348 - 345.8 

Cumming Highway/GA 20, Suwanee Dam Road 

2) Orrs Ferry Latitude 34.1212 

Longitude -84.0922 

Rm ~345.6 - 343.6 

From GA 20 south on Suwannee Dam Road NE, right onto 

Ramey Road NE, right onto Wild Timber Road NW, right onto 

Wild River View NW 

3) Settles Bridge Latitude 34.0988 

Longitude -84.0973 

Rm ~343.6 - 340.3 

Suwanee Dam Road, Johnson Road (unpaved) 

   

Park Section II 

4) McGinnis Ferry Latitude 34.0454 

Longitude -84.1087 

Rm ~339.8 - 338.4 

McGinnis Ferry Road 

   

5) Suwanee Creek Latitude 34.0279 

Longitude -84.1254 

Rm ~337.9 - 337.4 

Peachtree Industrial Boulevard, Chattahoochee Drive 

(unpaved) 

6) Abbotts Bridge Latitude 34.031 

Longitude -84.1662 

Rm ~335.3 - 334.6 

Abbotts Bridge Road, Boles Road 

   

7) Medlock Bridge Latitude 33.9928 

Longitude -84.2054 

Rm ~331.3 - 330.7 

Peachtree Parkway, Medlock Bridge Road 

   

8) Jones Bridge Latitude 33.9958 

Longitude -84.2518 

Rm ~328.7 - 326.5 

Holcomb Bridge Road, Jones Bridge Road, Barnwell Road 

   

Park Section III    

9) Holcomb Bridge Latitude 33.9707 

Longitude -84.2657 

Rm ~325.4 - 325.0 

Holcomb Bridge Road 

   

10) Island Ford Latitude 33.9936 

Longitude -84.3283 

Rm ~320.2 - 318.3 

GA 400, Northridge Road, Dunwoody Place, Roberts Drive 

   

11) Vickery Creek Latitude 34.0133 

Longitude -84.3491 

Rm ~317.4 - 317.5 

Roswell Road, Azalea Drive, Riverside Road 

(note: most of this unit is set back from the river) 

12) Gold Branch Latitude 33.9798 

Longitude -84.3807 

Rm ~314.9 - 312.9 

Lower Roswell Road, Timber Ridge Road 

   

13) Johnson Ferry Latitude 33.9463 

Longitude -84.4053 

Rm ~312.4 - 309.6 

Johnson Ferry Road 

   
11 

Table 1. (continued). 

Park Unit Location Description

Park Section IV    

14) Cochran Shoals Latitude 33.9255 

Longitude -84.4417 

Rm ~308.7 - 308.6 

Rm ~308.7 - 306.3 

Johnson Ferry Road, Paper Mill Road, Columns Drive 

(including Powers Island) 

   

15) Palisades Latitude 33.8871 

Longitude -84.4395 

Rm ~306.0 - 304.5 

I-285, Northside Drive, Mount Vernon Highway, Powers 

Ferry Road, Riverview Road 

16) Paces Mill Latitude 33.8694 

Longitude -84.4534 

Rm 304.4 - 303.6 

I-285, I-75, Cobb Parkway 

   

Land Use / Land Cover in the Chattahoochee Watershed 

Land use characteristics of the total Chattahoochee River watershed upstream from the southern 

edge of the park, and of the watershed from the Lake Lanier outfall to the southern edge of the 

park, were determined using data layers from 2005 that were provided by the Natural Resources 

Spatial Analysis Laboratory at the University of Georgia, Athens, GA (Figures 7 and 8). Also 

considered here are data by Park Section (I-IV) for sub-watersheds from a few years earlier 

(digital images from 2000), when land use in Chattahoochee River basin watersheds was 

assessed as part of the process of developing TMDLs for fecal coliform densities and suspended 

sediments in some of the impaired waters affecting the park. Land use characteristics were 

determined using data from Georgia’s Multiple Resolution Land Coverage, which was produced 

from Landsat Thematic Mapper. The land use characteristics of these sub-watersheds were 

determined using data from Georgia’s Multiple Resolution Land Coverage (MRLC), and these 

land use coverage data were obtained from the Atlanta Regional Commission (Tables 2-6). 

In the entire Chattahoochee watershed, forest still covers about half of the land, and pasture/hay 

and other agricultural practices cover nearly 20%, with urban land use about 14% of the total 

(2005 data layers, Natural Resources Spatial Analysis Laboratory, University of Georgia). 

However, urban development over the past 15 years has dramatically affected the portion of the 

watershed containing the park (Tables 2-5, Figure 8). The percent of impervious surface within 

a watershed or sub-watershed is an index of urbanization, and is significantly related to nonpoint 

source pollution (Mallin et al. 2001, Rothenberger et al. 2009). For perspective, watersheds with 

impervious surface higher than 7% typically have high fecal coliform bacterial densities from 

stormwater input to surface waters, so that shellfish are not safe for human consumption (Mallin 

et al. 2001). Schueler (1994) and Paul and Meyer (2001) inferred that healthy watershed 

conditions can be met if impervious surface area is maintained at or below 10%. Considering the 

three major urban land use categories (low-intensity residential, high-intensity residential, and 

high-intensity commercial-industrial-transportation), nearly one-third (32.7%) of the subwatershed drained by the Chattahoochee River from its confluence with Jones Creek down to 

Morgan Falls was reported to be in urban land development (GA DNR 2007a). This situation is 

exacerbated for the lower park segments: the sub-watershed drained by the Chattahoochee from 

Morgan Falls Dam downstream past Paces Mill to Peachtree Creek was reported as 65.1% urban 

land development (GA DNR 2007a). Sub-watersheds drained by tributaries in the upper Park 
12 

Section I for which data were available averaged 44.3% urban land use; tributary sub-watersheds 

in Sections II, III, and IV averaged 57.9%, 82.7%, and 90.4% urban land use, respectively. 

Figure 7. Land use in the Chattahoochee River watershed that lies upstream from the southernmost 

extension of the park, based on data layers from 2005 that were provided by the Natural Resources 

Spatial Analysis Laboratory at the University of Georgia. Land use percentages are indicated in 

parentheses after each category. As the map illustrates, most of the watershed above Lake Lanier is 

covered by rock outcrop, forest and cropland, whereas most land use in the watershed below Lake Lanier 

is in low- or high-intensity urban development. 

Serious water quality degradation and impairment to aquatic flora and fauna would be expected 

from such conditions (Paul and Meyer 2001, Mallin et al. 2001). An impervious surface cover 

model for the health of the park watershed was constructed by Reynolds and Hardy (2007), and 

was used to construct a time series analysis of 688 micro- (sub-) watersheds and sub-watershed 

condition comparing years 1991, 2001, and 2005 (Figure 9). Micro-watersheds were delineated 

using ArchHydro extension, and a flow accumulation model was used to develop a watershed 

layer at a 247.1-acre (100-hectare) threshold. 
13 

Figure 8. Map of land use in the portion of the Chattahoochee River watershed from Lake Lanier to the 

southernmost extension of the park, based on data layers from 2005 that were provided by the Natural 

Resources Spatial Analysis Laboratory at the University of Georgia. This map shows the large-scale 

urbanization (~81%) of the portion of the watershed that includes the park, with land use percentages 

below Lake Lanier indicated in parentheses after each category. 

Remnant and fragment micro-watersheds (less than 100 acres in size) were joined to the largest 

adjacent watershed using the “Eliminate” geoprocessing tool in ArcGIS. Percent impervious area 

layers were obtained from NARSAL at the University of Georgia. The percent impervious area 

for micro-watersheds surrounding the park was estimated using Zonal Statistics++ in Hawth’s 

tools (Reynolds and Hardy 2007). The analysis shows rapid urbanization in the Chattahoochee 

watershed portion containing the park over the past ~15 years. In 1991, 36.5% of the microwatersheds (251 of a total of 688) were impacted or degraded; by 2005, 81.5% (561) were 

assessed as impacted or degraded. 
14 

Table 2. Land use (2000 data) in sub-watersheds affecting Park Section I (most upstream area; units 1-3, 

from Bowmans Island down to Settles Bridge). In headers, sub-watershed area is indicated in 

parentheses. From GA DNR (2003a). 

Unit 1 

Bowmans Island 

Unit 3 

Settles Bridge 

Land Use Richland Creek 

(7,183 acres) 

Level Creek 

(5,649 acres) 

Open water 6 (0.1%) 21 (0.4%) 

Low-intensity residential 2,052 (28.6%) 2,736 (48.4%) 

High-intensity residential 58 (0.8%) 42 (0.7%) 

High-intensity commercial, 

Industrial, transportation 

446 (6.2%) 222 (3.9%) 

Bare Rock, sand clay 22 (0.3%) 0 

Quarries, strip mines 246 (3.4%) 0 

Transitional 233 (3.2%) 70 (1.2%) 

Forest 3,787 (52.7%) 2,146 (38.0%) 

Agricultural 

(pasture/ hay, row crop) 

156 (2.2%) 375 (0.7%) 

Other grasses 

(urban, park, etc.) 

177 (2.5%) 37 

Wetlands 0 0 
15 

Table 3. Land use (2000 data) in sub-watersheds affecting Park Section II (units 4-8, from McGinnis Ferry 

down to Jones Bridge), and the mainstem Chattahoochee River in lower Section 2 through most of 

Section III (confluence with Johns Creek down to Morgan Falls, or from RM 329.3 down to RM 312.7) In 

headers, sub-watershed area is given in parentheses. From GA DNR (2003a, 2008a). 

Unit 5 

Suwanee Creek 

Units 8-12

Jones Br. To 

Gold Branch 

Unit 8 

Jones Bridge 

Land Use Suwanee Creek

(31,539 acres) 

Chattahoochee R.

(167,682 acres) 

Johns Creek

(8,383 acres) 

Open water 91 (0.3%) 2,518 (1.5%) 50 (0.6%) 

Low-intensity residential 8,770 (27.8%) 38,715 (23.1%) 5,451 (65.0%) 

High-intensity residential 256 (0.8%) 11,390 (6.8%) 86 (1.0%) 

High-intensity commercial, 

Industrial, transportation 

3,811 (12.1%) 4,616 (2.8%) 753 (9.0%) 

Bare Rock, sand clay 0 1,638 (1.0%) 0 

Quarries, strip mines 0 251 (0.1%) 0 

Transitional 1,929 (6.1%) -- 265 (3.2%) 

Forest 13,305 (42.2%) 53,730 (32.0%) 969 (11.6%) 

Agricultural 

(pasture/ hay, row crop) 

2,556 (8.1%) 13,963 (8.3%) 359 (4.3%) 

Other grasses 

(urban, park, etc.) 

181 (0.6%) 37,263 (22.3%) 333 (4.0%) 

Wetlands 640 (2.0%) 3,598 (2.1%) 117 (1.4%) 
16 

Table 4a. Land use (2000 data) in sub-watersheds affecting Park Section III (Park Units 9-11, from 

Holcomb Bridge down to Vickery Creek). In headers, sub-watershed area is given in parentheses. From 

GA DNR (2003a). 

Unit 9 – Holcomb Br. Unit 10 – Island Ford Unit 11 – Vickery Cr. 

Land Use Crooked Creek 

(5,783 acres) 

Ball Mill Creek 

(2,538 acres) 

Big Creek (Hwy 400) 

(66,391 acres) 

Open water 17 (0.3%) 0 343 (0.5%) 

Low-intensity residential 1,471 (25.4%) 2,157 (85.0%) 24,785 (37.3%) 

High-intensity residential 873 (15.1%) 11,390 (6.8%) 1,453 (2.2%) 

High-intensity commercial, 

Industrial, transportation 

2,631 (45.5%) 39 (1.5%) 9,579 (14.4%) 

Bare Rock, sand clay 0 0 0 

Quarries, strip mines 0 0 7 (~0%) 

Transitional 139 (2.4%) 0 2,611 (3.9%) 

Forest 647 (11.2%) 103 (4.0%) 14,299 (21.5%) 

Agricultural 

(pasture/ hay, row crop) 

0 0 10,768 (16.2%) 

Other grasses 

(urban, park, etc.) 

5 (0.1%) 105 (4.1%) 1,189 (1.8%) 

Wetlands 0 0 1,357 (2.0%) 

Table 4b. Land use (2000 data) in sub-watersheds affecting Park Section III (Park Units 12-13, from 

Holcomb Bridge down to Vickery Creek), and also the mainstem Chattahoochee River in lower Section III 

(just above Johnson Ferry) through Section IV (Morgan Falls Dam downstream from Paces Mill, to 

Peachtree Creek, or from RM 329.3 down to RM 312.7). In headers, sub-watershed area is given in 

parentheses. From GA DNR (2003a). 

Unit 12 

Gold Branch 

Units 13-16 – above 

Johnson Ferry to Paces 

Mill 

Unit 13 

Johnson Ferry 

Willeo Creek 

(10,664 acres) 

Chattahoochee R. 

(291,264 acres) 

March Creek 

(3,728 acres) 

Open water 142 (1.3%) 2,923 (1.0%) 0 

Low-intensity residential 9,179 (86.1%) 133,891 (46.0%) 2,273 (61.0%) 

High-intensity residential 56 (0.5%) 11,936 (4.1%) 466 (12.5%) 

High-intensity commercial, 

Industrial, transportation 

433 (4.1%) 43,612 (15.0%) 609 (16.3%) 

Bare Rock, sand clay 0 38 (~0%) 0 

Quarries, strip mines 0 931 (0.2%) 0 

Transitional 153 (1.4%) 8,439 (2.9%) 51 (1.4%) 

Forest 623 (5.8%) 61,249 (21.0%) 312 (8.4%) 

Agricultural 

(pasture/ hay, row crop) 

69 (0.6%) 19,262 (6.6%) 0 

Other grasses 

(urban, park, etc.) 

8 (0.1%) 6,262 (2.1%) 17 (0.4%) 

Wetlands 2 (~0%) 2,625 (0.9%) 0 
17 

Table 5. Land use (2000 data) in sub-watersheds affecting Park Section IV (units 14-16, from Cochran 

Shoals down to Paces Mill). In headers, sub-watershed area is given in parentheses. From GA DNR 

(2003a). 

 Unit 14

Cochran Shoals 

Unit 15 

Palisades 

Land Use Sope Creek

(22,515 acres) 

Long Is. Creek

(5,131 acres) 

Rottenwood Creek

(12,701 acres) 

Open water 59 (0.3%) 11 (0.2%) 4 (~0%) 

Low-intensity residential 16,097 (71.5%) 3,987 (77.7%) 2,615 (20.36%) 

High-intensity residential 588 (2.6%) 302 (5.9%) 1,783 (14.0%) 

High-intensity commercial, 

Industrial, transportation 

3,263 (14.5%) 627 (12.2%) 6,628 (52.2%) 

Bare Rock, sand clay 16 (0.1%) 0 0 

Quarries, strip mines 0 0 0 

Transitional 154 (0.7%) 8 (0.2%) 125 (1.0%) 

Forest 1,612 (7.2%) 176 (3.4%) 1,234 (9.7%) 

Agricultural 

(pasture/ hay, row crop) 

233 (1.0%) 0 0 

Other grasses 

(urban, park, etc.) 

493 (2.2%) 22 (0.4%) 312 (2.5%) 

Wetlands 0 0 0 

Figure 9. Impervious surface cover model for the health of the park watershed, considering a microwatershed time series from 1991 to 2005. From Reynolds and Hardy (2007). 
Hydrologic Information 

General Area 

The park region has a humid, subtropical temperature, often reaching the mid-90s (oF) or higher 

in summer and decreasing to the mid-40s during winter, with a mean annual temperature of 

~62.1o

F (Frick et al. 1998, GA DNR 2007b; Daymet – www.daymet.org). Mean annual 

precipitation is 50.17 inches, and snowfall is rare; evapotranspiration is about 32 inches per year 

(Frick et al. 1998, GA DNR 2007b, Georgia State Climatology Office 2007). Precipitation 

generally is greatest in February-March and least in October. A dry season extends from midsummer to late fall (GA DNR 2007b). 

The park lies entirely within the Piedmont Province, and the general drainage area is underlain 

by deeply weathered crystalline rock (Krankle and Vana-Miller 2000). The Chattahoochee River 

(total watershed 416 sq. mi.) in this area flows along the Brevard Fault Zone, a highly fractured 

zone ranging from about half a mile to two miles wide within the Gainesville Ridges District 

(Clark and Zisa 1976). The river is one of the oldest and most stable river channels within the 

U.S., “locked” in place along the fault zone within a relatively long, narrow watershed (NPS 

2008a). It is heavily relied upon for potable water supplies (below). 

The Lake Lanier reservoir (Figure 2; and see below) was completed in 1957 by the USACE for 

hydropower, water supply to the Atlanta metropolitan area, and flood control. The City’s other 

main water source is the Etowah River and its multipurpose reservoir, Lake Allatoona, 

constructed in 1950. The flow of the Chattahoochee River through Atlanta is controlled by 

management of Lake Lanier, which has decreased the frequency of high- and low-flow events 

but has also caused large daily fluctuations in flows (tailwater fluctuations from 3.9 – 11.1 m) 

because of hydropower generation and other management practices (Couch et al. 1996, Kunkle 

and Vana-Miller 2000, Fitzhugh and Richter 2004). 

Surface Waters 

The Chattahoochee River is about 430 miles long and drains a watershed area of 8,770 square 

miles. Its average discharge over the entire basin is 11,500 cfs (Couch 1993). The park 

segments are included between river mile 348.3 at the Buford Dam downstream to river mile 

303.5 (Figures 2-6, 10). The river drains about 416 square miles in this area (Kunkle and VanaMiller 2000). A total of 15 major tributaries as well as many minor tributaries of the river occur 

in the present park area (Figure 8). The two largest tributaries within the park are Big Creek 

(mean daily discharge 108 cfs, maximum flow 2,410 - 3,970 cfs) and Suwanee Creek (mean 

daily discharge 67 cfs, maximum flow 2,150 - 4350 cfs) (NPS 2004a). 

Hydrologic information is especially important for this park because its aquatic resources are 

significantly affected by the heavy reliance by the greater metropolitan Atlanta area for drinking 

water supplies from the mainstem Chattahoochee River. The park is projected to be more 

seriously affected by Chatthoochee water demands, throughout the watershed, as rapid human 

population growth continues (Jordan et al. 2006, ARC 2007). 
19 

Figure 10. Schematic of tributaries with watersheds larger than three square miles that enter the 

Chattahoochee River within park segments. River mileposts are at the mouths of the tributaries; 

elevations and the two dams affecting the study area are also shown. Information from Burke (1994) in 

Kunkle and Vana-Miller (2000). 

Two dams, the Buford Dam and the Morgan Falls Dam (Table 6), have altered normal, climatedriven surface water flows along the Chattahoochee in the park area and fragmented aquatic 

communities. The Buford Dam and its impoundment, Lake Lanier, are the upstream boundary 

of the park (river mile 348.3) (Plate 3), and the impoundment is large enough to hold the volume 

of 500-year floods (USACE 1998). The USACE has operated the dam since 1957, originally 

emphasizing hydroelectric power and flood control but, since 1989, emphasizing water supply 

(McMahon and Stevens 1995). Recreational uses have become more important as well. The 

much smaller second dam in the area, run-of-river Morgan Falls Dam, was constructed in 1903 

at river mile 312.6 (Plate 4). After more than 100 years its impoundment, Bull Sluice Lake, now 

has extensive sediment deposits that have significantly reduced water storage (Kunkle and VanaMiller 2000). Operation of these two dams, especially the Buford Dam, is required to maintain a 

minimum flow of at least 750 cfs in the Chattahoochee River downstream from the City of 

Atlanta’s water intake at river mile 299.6 (Collier et al. 1996, USACE 1998). 
20 

Table 6. Dams and impoundments along the Chattahoochee River that affect the park (modified from 

Kunkle and Vana-Miller 2000) [Main Use codes are as follows: FC - flood control; N - navigation; P - 

hydroelectric power; R - recreation; WS - water supply; WQ - water quality (wastewater assimilation); 

FW - fish and wildlife habitat]. 

Dam / 

Impoundment 

Owner / Date 

Completed 

Main Uses * River Mile / 

Elevation 

Drainage Area 

(sq. mi.) 

Total Storage 

Area (Acre-ft.) 

Buford/ 

Lake Lanier 

(38,024 acres) 

USACE/ 1957 FC, N, P, R, WS, 

FW 

348.3/ 

1,071 ft 

1,040 1,917,000 

(637,000 

reserved for 

flood control) 

Morgan Falls/ 

Bull Sluice Lake 

(580 acres) 

GA Power/ 1903 P, WQ 312.6/ 

866 ft 

1,340 Originally 2,250 

Plate 3. Left – Lake Lanier and Buford Falls Dam, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Digital Visual Library 

(http://eportal.usace.army.mil/sites/DVL/default.aspx). Right – Close-up of the dam 

(http://georgiainfo.galileo.usg.edu/hoochbuford1.htm); photo by J. Kundell, used with permission.

Plate 4. The Morgan Falls Dam on the Chattahoochee River at river mile 312.6 between Park Units 12 

(Gold Branch) and 13 (Johnson Ferry). Photo: http://ngeorgia.com/images/morganfallsdam1.jpg (with 

permission from Golden Ink, Inc.).

Before the Buford Dam was completed, major winter and early spring floods were common, and 

large floods of more than 30,000 cfs occurred once or twice during most decades (Cherry et al. 

1980, Collier et al. 1996, Kunkle and Vana-Miller 2000). Since 1957, the Buford dam and 

releases from Lake Lanier generally have dominated Chattahoochee River flows within the park, 

except during major storms when runoff has more strongly influenced the river hydrograph 
21 

(USAE 1998). Releases can cause extreme variability in flow (GA DNR 1997). The outlet sluice 

has a maximum capacity of 11,600 cfs, but the dam can release up to 22,600 cfs without use of 

the emergency spillway (USACE 1998). The cycle of dam releases typically follows a weekly 

schedule, with five weekdays of short release periods followed by little or no water release on 

weekends (Kunkle and Vana-Miller 2000). River discharge below this dam averages from less 

than 700 (sometimes less than 500) cfs to more than 5,000 cfs. The surges especially adversely 

affect the river for about 20 miles down-stream from the dam, causing severe bank erosion and 

tree fall (Kunkle and Vana-Miller 2000). Tributaries to the river in this area are becoming like 

gorges as they approach the Chattahoochee, apparently because of a backwater effect caused by 

the rapid changes in water level, scouring of the riverbed, undercutting of banks, and channel 

erosion which increases suspended sediment loading (Kunkle and Vana-Miller 2000). The 

temperature of water released from the bottom of the Buford Dam generally fluctuates from 44-

58o

F throughout the year, and is generally cooler than that of previous average temperatures in 

the Chattahoochee River. 

The USGS presently operates 14 stream gaging stations in the park area of the Chattahoochee 

River watershed (Upper Chattahoochee River Basin; Table 7, Figures 3-6; Appendix 1). Three 

stations on the mainstem Chattahoochee River and one station each on tributaries Suwanee 

Creek, Big Creek (near Alpharetta), Sope Creek, and Crooked Creek – Figures 4 and 5) have 

discharge data available for (at least) the past decade, which is the main focus of this Report 

(Figures 11 and 12, 13-left panels, 14, and 15). Data are also included below for discharge and 

gage height in the Chattahoochee River below Morgan Falls Dam (Figure 13- right panels), 

although annual averages are only available for the past ca. five years (2003-2007). In addition 

to average daily flow and stream height, near-real-time data on river discharge are available 

online about 6 hours post-collection. Over the past decade, annual average discharge at the 

northernmost edge of the park, the Chattahoochee River at Buford Dam, ranged from 757-881 

cfs (during drought conditions in 2001-2002) to 2,494-2,660 cfs (during wet years in 1998 and 

2005) (Figure 9). The daily variation of releases from Buford Dam is extreme, however, so that 

average and median values are considered to have limited meaning (Kunkle and Vana-Miller 

2000). Downstream near Park Unit 11 (City of Roswell), annual average river discharge ranged 

from 789-1,026 cfs (2001-2002) to 2,875-3,014 cfs (1998, 2005) (Figure 9). 

Chattahoochee River Tributaries

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

Buford Dam Norcross Roswell

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

Buford Dam Norcross Roswell

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

Buford Dam Norcross Roswell

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

0

50

100

150

200

250

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Suwanee Creek Big Creek Sope Creek

0

50

100

150

200

250

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Suwanee Creek Big Creek Sope Creek

0

50

100

150

200

250

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Suwanee Creek Big Creek Sope Creek

Discharge (cfs)

Discharge (cfs)

Figure 11. Annual average flow at the USGS stations that have available data over ca. the past decade 

including: (upper panel) Three stations in the Chattahoochee River, Buford Dam (USGS 02334430), Norcross 

(USGS 02335000), and above Roswell (USGS 02335450); and (lower panel) One station each on tributaries 

Suwanee Creek (USGS 02334885), Big Creek southeast of Alpharetta (USGS 02335700), and Sope Creek 

(USGS 02335870). See Appendix 1 for detailed data.
22 

Table 7. USGS stream stations (discharge data) in recent operation in or nearest to the park (~7-mile 

radius), listed in order from north to south (http://www.ga.usgs.gov). Sections I-IV refer to park sections 

as subdivided in this Report (see Table 1 and Figures 3-16, 17-20). Asterisk (*) ≡ ongoing. 

Station Description Available Data 

Chattahoochee River (Hydrologic Unit 03130001) 

Buford Dam (Section I) 

(RM 348.1) 

(USGS 02334430) 

Lat. 34.1569, long. -84.0789 NAD83 

Gwinnett County near Buford 

Drainage area 1,040 sq. mi. 

912.04 ft above sea level NGVD29 

1 Oct 55 - 30 Sep 07* 

Norcross (Section II) 

(RM 330.8) 

(USGS 02335000) 

Lat. 33.9972, long. -84.2019 NAD83 

Gwinnett County 

Drainage area 1,170 sq. mi. 

878.14 ft above sea level NGVD29 

1 Oct 56 - 30 Jan 08* 

Above Roswell (Section III) 

(RM 320.6) 

(USGS 02335450) 

 

Lat. 33.9858, long. -84.3161 NAD83 

Eves Rd., Fulton County 

Drainage area 1,220 sq. mi. 

858.01 ft above sea level NGVD29 

1 Aug 76 - 30 Sep 07* 

Below Morgan Falls Dam 

(Section III) 

(400 ft. below dam) 

(USGS 02335815) 

Lat. 33.9681, long. -84.3828 NAD83 

Fulton Co., GA; drainage area 1,370 sq. mi. 

843.48 ft above sea level NGVD29 

1 Nov 00 - 30 Jan 08* 

Tributaries 

 

Richland Creek (Section I) 

(USGS 02334480) 

Suwanee Dam Rd. near Buford 

Lat. 34.1325, long. -84.0700 NAD27 

Drainage area 9.34 sq. mi. 

920.0 ft above sea level NGV029 

1 Oct 95 - 31 Dec 96, 

1 Jun 01 - 30 Sep 07* 

Level Creek (Section I) 

(USGSS 02334578) 

Suwanee Dam Rd. near Suwanee 

Lat. 34.0964, long. -84.0797 NAD27 

Drainage area 5.04 sq. mi. 

985 ft. above sea level NGVD29 

June 01 - 30 Sep 07* 

Dick Creek (Section I) 

(USGS 02334620) 

Old Atlanta Rd., 3.5 miles west of Suwanee 

Lat. 34.0714, long. -84.1303 NAD27 

On left bank of culvert, 0.8 mile upstream from 

confluence with Chattahoochee R. Drainage 

area 6.90 sq. mi. 

1 Jan 04 - 30 Sep 07 

Suwanee Creek (Section II) 

(USGS 02334885) 

At U.S. Rte. 23, Suwanee, Gwinnett County 

Lat. 34.0322, long. -84.0894 NAD27 

Drainage area 47 sq. mi. 

909.71 ft. above sea level NGVD29 

1 Oct 84 - 30 May 08* 

Crooked Creek (Section III) 

(USGS 02335350) 

Near Norcross, Gwinnett County 

Lat. 33.9650, long. -84.2650 NAD27 

Drainage area 8.89 sq. mi. 

869.40 ft. above sea level NGVD29 

1 Apr 01 - 30 Sept 07* 

Big Creek (Section III) 

(USGS 02335700) 

Kimball Bridge Rd. 2.6 miles southeast of 

Alpharetta, Fulton County 

Lat. 34.0506, long. -84.2694 NAD83 

Drainage area 72 sq. mi. 

960.8 ft. above sea level 

1 May 60 - 30 Sep 07* 
23 

Table 7. (Continued). 

Station Description Available Data 

Tributaries (continued) 

Big Creek (Section III) 

(USGS 02335757) 

Below Hog Wallow Creek at Roswell, Fulton 

County 

Lat. 34.0175, long. -84.3533 NAD83 

Drainage area 103.16 sq. mi. 

940.00 ft above sea level NGVD29 

1 May 04 – 30 Sep 07* 

Willeo Creek (Section III) 

(USGS 02335790) 

At GA HWY 120 near Roswell, Fulton County 

Lat. 34.0028, long. -84.3944 NAD83 

Drainage area 16.10 sq. mi. 

818.5 ft. above sea level NAVD88 

11 May 07 - 6 Nov 08* 

Sope Creek (Section IV) 

(USGS 02335870) 

Columns Dr. near Marietta, Cobb County 

Lat. 33.9539, long. -84.4433 NAD83 

Drainage area 29.2 sq. mi. 

881.3 ft. above sea level 

1 Oct 84 - 4 Nov 08* 

Rottenwood Creek (Section IV) 

(USGS 02335910) 

At Interstate North Parkway near Smyrna 

Lat. 33.8936, long. -84.4578 NAD27 

Drainage area 18.6 sq. mi. 

843.15 ft. above sea level NGVD88 

22 Mar 07 - 7 May 08* 

 
24 

Figure 12. Left panels, Chattahoochee River at Buford Dam (USGS station 02334885): Daily discharge 

over the period of record (1945-), daily discharge and daily gage height over the recent ~decade. Right 

panels, Chattahoochee River near Norcross (USGS 02335000): Daily discharge over the period of record 

(1904-), and daily discharge and daily gage height over the past ~decade. From 

http://ga2.er.usgs.gov/gawater/index.cfm. 
25 

Figure 13. Left panels, Chattahoochee River above Roswell (USGS station 02335450): Daily discharge 

over the period of record (1976-), and daily discharge and daily gage height over the past ~decade. Right 

panels, Chattahoochee River below Morgan Falls Dam (USGS 02335815): Daily discharge over the 

period of record (1985-) and daily discharge and daily gage height over the past ~decade. From 

http://ga2.er.usgs.gov/gawater/index.cfm. 
26 

Figure 14. Left panels, Big Creek (USGS station 02334885): Daily discharge and daily gage height at Big 

Creek over the period of record (1997-). Right panels, Sope Creek (USGS 02335870): Daily discharge over 

the period of record (1985-) and daily discharge and daily gage height over the past ~decade. From 

http://ga2.er.usgs.gov/gawater/index.cfm. 
27 

Wetlands 

Although the basic geological characteristics of the area do not provide broad flood zones, the 

USFWS (2001) estimated, based on its National Wetland Inventory maps, that at least ~152 

acres comprising 39 different types of wetlands, within 6 major types, occur in the park (e.g. 

Plate 5), which provide diverse habitats for waterfowl and wildlife (Table 8). It should be noted, 

however, that Chafin (1990) reported that the actual extent of the park’s wetlands was probably 

underestimated from the U.S. FWS’s National Wetland Inventory maps because some wetlands 

were not included. 

Figure 15. Suwanee Creek (USGS 02334885): Daily discharge over the period of record (1984-), and daily 

discharge and daily gage height over the past decade. From http://ga2.er.usgs.gov/gawater/index.cfm. 
28 

Table 8. Acreage and relative abundance of major wetland types in the park, based upon the National 

Wetland Inventory maps of the U.S. FWS (2001). From NPS (2004a). 

Major Wetland Type Acres 

Relative Abundance 

(% of Total Acres) 

Palustrine forested 21.5 14.20% 

Palustrine scrub/shrub 10.3 6.80% 

Palustrine unconsolidated bottom or shore 7.8 5.20% 

Palustrine Emergent 6.2 4.10% 

Lacustrine 33.4 22.00% 

Riverine 72.7 47.90% 

Plate 5. Wetland at Bowmans Island during a low-water period (upper panel); and Bull Sluice Lake and 

an adjacent wetland in the Gold Branch Park Unit (middle and lower panels). Photos by E. Morris, 2008.
29 

Among the major wetland types, riverine wetlands are defined to include all wetlands and 

deepwater habitats contained in natural or artificial channels that periodically or continuously 

contain flowing water, or that form a continuous link between two bodies of standing water (US 

FWS 2001). They are the major wetland type in the Park (ca. 48% of the total). Lacustrine 

wetlands, defined as non-flowing open water areas at least 20 acres in area that contain wetland 

vegetation, are second in abundance (22% of the total). They occur in topographic depressions 

or dammed river channels that lack trees, shrubs, persistent emergent plants, or emergent 

bryophytes with more than 30% coverage. Palustrine forested wetlands, representing ~14% of 

the total wetland acreage, are dominated by mature hardwood trees in floodplains and are 

flooded for varying periods. The remaining major types of wetlands in the Park include 

palustrine unconsolidated bottom or shore (~5%), palustrine emergent (~4%), and palustrine 

scrub/shrub wetlands that mostly are associated with beaver ponds. 

Groundwater Resources 

The Piedmont province consists mostly of sedimentary rocks with intrusions of crystalline 

igneous rock, ranging in age from pre-Cambrian to Triassic (Cederstrom et al. 1979, Leeth et al. 

2006). The metamorphic and igneous crystalline rocks are sometimes overlain by pockets of 

unconsolidated, weathered rock debris called regolith. Shallow regolith deposits are about 100 

feet or less in thickness. The Brevard fault zone (200 million years old) passes roughly through 

the center of the park in a northeast-southwest direction along the western edge of Gwinnett 

County (USACE 1987). Many smaller faults also occur in the area (Cressler et al. 1983, Clark 

and Pierce 1985). Soils range in texture from gravel-sandy loam to clay loam. 

The park area has minimal groundwater resources. The water table is generally highest during 

April-May after winter rains, and lowest in October-November and during hot weather (Carter 

and Herrick 1951). Appreciable water-bearing fractures in the Atlanta area are mostly less than 

250 feet in depth (Carter and Herrick 1951, Chapman and Peck 1997). Where aquifers have 

localized increases in permeability, which occurs mostly in the Forsyth County area, well yield 

can be up to ~150 gpm. Groundwater also occurs in small openings of the mantle rock and in the 

regolith, but well yields typically are less than 50 gpm (Couch et al. 1996). Dug wells in the 

Atlanta area generally yield only 2-5 gpm, and the average yield of drilled wells (average depth, 

200-500 feet) for municipal or industrial use is only about 40 gpm. 

Biological Resources 

As mentioned, Buford Dam and Morgan Falls Dam have caused habitat fragmentation on the 

Chattahoochee River affecting the park segments, and often-extreme daily variability occurs in 

water discharge from Buford Dam as well. Oxygen deficits also can occur in the river below the 

dam in late summer – early fall (Kunkle and Vana-Miller 2000). On a broader scale, the 

Chattahoochee River has 14 impoundments from the Buford Dam downstream to the confluence 

with the Flint River, with the first impoundment constructed in 1834 (Brim Box and Williams 

2000). The Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint basin is the second most impounded system in the 

Southeast, with 1,417 dams recorded in the National Inventory of Dams (USACE 2005, Long 

and Martin 2008). Thus, the aquatic communities and habitats are extremely fragmented in the 

broader watershed. Aside from the obvious effect of dam construction on stream hydrology and 

habitat fragmentation, other major habitat alterations include bank erosion, streambed scour, 

species changes, increased sedimentation, and adverse changes in water quality such as increased 

temperature, decreased dissolved oxygen, and increased algal blooms and fish kills (Williams et 
30 

al. 1993, Allan 1995, Watters 2000). The surged or pulsed water releases from dams used for 

hydroelectric power, such as the Buford Dam, impose sudden, extreme variability in water depth 

and temperature, leading to the elimination of many riverine species and significant alteration of 

aquatic food webs (Wetzel 2001). 

Despite the park’s extreme fragmentation, the Chattahoochee River is a uniting, connecting 

feature, and the park is vitally important to wildlife partly because it connects the Mountain and 

Piedmont physiographic provinces, thus serving as a migratory route and means of range 

extension (Wharton 1978, NPS 2004a). As the Atlanta metropolitan area continues to rapidly 

expand, the park will become more important as a wildlife refuge. 

Microalgae 

Information was not found on the microalgal assemblages in wetlands, streams and rivers, ponds, 

and impoundments in the park. Datasets are available, however, for phytoplankton assemblage 

composition and biomass as chlorophyll a in the Lake Lanier source water for the mainstem 

Chattahoochee segments that flow through the park. A survey of the Lake Lanier outflow area in 

November 2006 revealed the presence of a large bloom of the potentially toxic cyanobacterium 

Microcystis aeruginosa (Plate 6). This noxious organism can cause fish disease and death, but 

fortunately it does not survive flowing water conditions and its toxins also would be expected to 

be rapidly diluted with transport downriver (Plate 7; Burkholder 2002). 

Plate 6. Eutrophic tailwater in the Chattahoochee River just below Buford Dam and 0.2 mile downstream 

(left and right panels, respectively). The olive green cast reflects the presence of a cyanobacterial bloom, 

which was confirmed by light microscopy. Photos by M. Mallin and J. Burkholder, November 2006.
31 

Plate 7. Upper Chattahoochee River two miles downstream from Buford Dam, photographed on the same 

date in November 2006 and showing little evidence of the upstream cyanobacterial bloom. Photo by M. 

Mallin.

Wetland and Aquatic Macrophytes 

There are numerous habitats in the park for wetland and aquatic macrophyte species (e.g. Plates 

5 and 8). Species lists include a compilation by the NPS (2008c) information, and a recent 

survey (2000-2003) of ten Park Units by Hay and Parker (2003). In the latter effort, extreme 

river turbidity prevented adequate data collection from the Chattahoochee River on some dates, 

so herbarium specimens and plant composition data from wetlands and ponds from six sites 

(Buford Falls, Powers Island, Johnson Ferry, Cochran Shoals, Gumby Swamp and Sibley Pond 

along Sope Creek) was considered to supplement the survey information for the other six Park 

Units. 

Considering both sources as well as species mentioned by Kunkle and Vana-Miller (2000), a 

total of 351 species of wetland and aquatic plants have been reported from the park (e.g. Plate 8), 

including 9 ferns (Tables 9 and 10). Of these, 19 species are predominantly aquatic, including 

17 vascular species and 2 macroalgae, the charalean chlorophyte Nitella flexilis and the 

ochrophyte Vaucheria sp. Although mosses were not surveyed, the aquatic moss Fontinalis 

novae-angliae is abundant, as well, in rocky shoal areas of the park (see below). Wetland and 

aquatic species comprise about 38% of the total higher plant species (925 vascular species) 

reported in the park. Common wetland forest species in the park are alder, black gum, red 

maple, sweetgum, and water oak (Kunkle and Vana-Miller 2000). 
32 

Plate 8. Some wetland flora in the park (photos by E. Morris, 2008). 

High turbidity at some Park Units is affecting some beneficial wetland species; for example, in 

the survey by Hay and Parker (2003), the extremely turbid waters of the Chattahoochee River in 

the Vickery Creek unit yielded very little aquatic vegetation. In contrast, highest number of 

aquatic macrophyte species was found at the Jones Bridge and Island Ford units, likely related to 

the increased water clarity of those units and the diversity of their habitats including rock 

surfaces, deep pools, shallow sandy areas, and river banks. 

Little is known about the extent to which wetland and aquatic macrophytes are consumed by 

herbivores, except for three recent studies in the park that focused on selected species in the 

Chattahoochee River and its littoral fringe. Parker et al. (2007a) studied interactions between 

selected macrophyte and herbivore species and wrote (p.303), “In the Chattahoochee River, 

herbivory on macrophytes appears strong. We commonly observed Canada geese grazing along 

the shoals and riverbanks, with some groups of geese surpassing 100 individuals. There was also 

conspicuous evidence of grazing by beavers and muskrats.” The authors showed that hornleaf 

riverweed (Podostemum ceratophyllum) is consumed by various generalist herbivores (the 

amphipod Crangonyx, the isopod Asellus aquaticus, the crayfish Procambaras spiculifer, and 

Canada geese) preferentially over the common aquatic moss Fontinalis novae-angliae, despite 

the fact that the moss comprised ca. 90% of the total plant biomass on riverine rocky shoals. 

Feeding on the aquatic moss by the larger herbivores, crayfish and Canada geese, but not by the 

small amphipod and isopod, was deterred by an allelopathic substance (a C18 acetylenic acid, 

octadeca-9,12-dien-6-ynoic acid) that is produced by the moss. Parker et al. (2007a, p.302) 

suggested that “herbivory by larger generalist herbivores may drive the plant community 

structure toward chemically defended plants and favor the ecological specialization of smaller, 

less mobile herbivores on unpalatable hosts that represent enemy-free space”.
33 

Table 9. Wetland and aquatic plant flora, excluding mosses and ferns (based upon Godfrey and Wooten 

1981a,b), in the park, indicating predominant wetland vs. aquatic status. Asterisks (*) ≡ macroalgae or 

(**) non-native species; SPOC ≡ species of concern (compiled from NPS 2008c, Kunkle & Vana-Miller 

2000, Hay & Parker 2003). 

Predominantly Aquatic Species 

American water lily (white waterlily) (Nymphae odorata) Parrot-feather (Brazilian watermilfoil) 

(Myriophyllum aquaticum)**

Bladderwort (Utricularia sp.) Slender waternymph (Najas gracillima) 

Brazilian elodea (Brazilian waterweed, common waterweed) 

(Egeria densa)** 

Small pondweed (Potamogeton pusillus) 

Broad (Canada) waterweed (Elodea canadensis) Stonewort (Nitella flexilis) * 

Cutleaf watermilfoil (Myriophyllum pinnatum) Vaucheria sp.*

Differentleaf waterstarwort (greater or larger waterstarwort) 

(Callitriche heterophylla) 

Water hyacinth (common or floating water hyacinth 

(Eichhornia crassipes)** 

Fanwort (Carolina fanwort) (Cabomba caroliniana) Watershield (schreberi watershield) (Brasenia schreberi)

Fontinalis moss (Fontinalis novae-angliae) Water-starwort (Callitriche heterophylla) 

Hornleaf riverweed (threadfoot) (Podostemum ceratophyllum) Waterthread pondweed (Potamogeton diversifolius) 

Loose watermilfoil (Myriophyllum laxum) 

Predominantly Wetland Species 

Acid water arrowhead (Sagittaria engelmannia) American wisteria (Wisteria frutescens) 

Ague-weed (stiff gentian, stiff goldenrod) 

(Gentiana quinquefolia)

American witchhazel (Hamamelis virginiana) 

Alder (Alnus serrulata) Amphibious sedge (eastern narrowleaf sedge) 

(Carex amphibola) 

Allegheny (ringen) monkeyflower (Mimulus ringens) Aneilima (Asian spiderwort) (Murdannia keisak)** 

Alligatorweed (Alternanthera philoxeroides)** Angelicatree (devils walkingstick) (Aralia spinosa) 

American bladdernut (Staphylea trifolia) Anglestem primrose-willow (anglestem waterprimrose) 

(Ludwigia leptocarpa) 

American burnweed (Erechtites hieraciifolia) Annual blue grass (walkgrass) (Poa annua)** 

American bur-reed (Sparganium americanum) Annual blue-eyed grass (Sisyrinchium rosulatum) 

American elder (Sambucus canadensis) Apios americana (groundnut, potatobean) (Apios americana) 

American elm (Ulmus americana) Arrowfeather threeawn (Aristida purpurascens) 
34 

Table 9. (continued). 

American germander (Canada or hairy germander, woodsage) 

Teucrium canadense) 

Arrow-leaf tearthumb (arrowleaf knotweed, arrowvine) 

(Polygonum sagittatum) 

American holly (Ilex opaca) Ashleaf maple (box elder, box elder maple) (Acer negundo) 

American hornbeam (Carpinus caroliniana) Asiatic (common) dayflower (Commelina communis)** 

American pokeweed (common pokeweed, inkberry, 

 pigeonberry) (Phytolacca americana) 

Aster sp.

American snowbell (snowbell) (Styrax americanus) Atamasco lily (Zephyranthes atamasco) 

American squawroot (squaw-root) (Conopholis americana) Atlantic coreopsis (tall tickseed) (Coreopsis tripteris) 

American sycamore (Platanus occidentalis) Autumn bluegrass (Poa autumnalis) 

American water plantain (Alisma subcordatum) Azure bluet (Houstonia caerulea) 

American water-willow (common water-willow, spike justicia) 

(Justicia americana) 

Baby (small) pondweed (Potamogeton pusillus) Blunt-leaf (bristly) bedstraw (Galium obtusum) 

Barnyard grass (watergrass) (Echinochloa crus-galli)** Bog (northern marsh) yellowcress 

(Rorippa palustris, or R. islandica) 

Beach (trailing) pearlwort (Sagina decumbens) Bog hemp (Boehmeria cylindrica) 

Beach false foxglove (Agalinis fasciculata) Bog rush (Juncus biflorus) 

Bearded (long-bracted) beggarticks (tickseed sunflower 

(Bidens aristosa) 

Bog smartweed (Polygonum setaceum) 

Bedstraw (catchweed bedstraw, cleavers) (Galium aparine) Brazilian vervain (Verbena brasiliensis)** 

Big bluestem (bluejoint, turkeyfoot) (Andropogon gerardii) Bristled knotweed (tufted knotweed, oriental ladysthumb) 

(Polygonum caespitosum) 

Bigroot morning glory (man-of-the-earth) (Ipomoea pandurata) Bristly buttercup (Ranunculus hispidus) 

Bitter dock (Rumex obtusifolius)** Bristly dewberry (Rubus hispidus) 

Bitternut hickory (Carya cordiformis) Broadleaf arrowhead (wapato) (Sagittaria latifolia) 

Bitterweed (common sneezeweed, fall sneezeweed, false 

sunflower (Helenium autumnale) 

Broadleaf cattail (Typha latifolia) 

Black gum (sour gum) (Nyssa sylvatica) Broadleaf plantain (buckhorn plantain, common plantain) 

(Plantago major)** 

Black tupelo (Nyssa sylvatica) Broadleaf uniola (Indian woodoats) (Chasmanthium latifolium) 

Black willow (Salix nigra) Broadtooth hedgenettle (Stachys tenuifolia, or S. latidens) 

Blister flower (bulbous buttercup, bulbous crowfoot) 

(Ranunculus bulbosus)** 

Broomsedge (broomsedge bluestem, yellow bluestem) 

(Andropogon virginicus, A. virginicus var. virginicus) 

Blisterwort (littleleaf buttercup) (Ranunculus recurvatus) Brown widelip orchid (Liparis lilifolia) 

Blue (hirsute) sedge (Carex complanata) Bullbrier (common catbrier, common greenbrier, horsebrier) 

(Smilax rotundifolia) 

Blue (mad dog) skullcap (Scutellaria lateriflora) Bulrush (woolgrass) (Scirpus cyperinus) 

Blue eyegrass (narrowleaf blue-eyed grass) 

(Sisyrinchium angustifolium) 

Bur marigold (devil’s beggartick) (Bidens frondosa) 

Blue mistflower (Conoclinium coelestinum) Bushy seedbox (Ludwigia alternifolia) 

Blunt spikerush (blunt spikesedge) (Eleocharis obtusa) Buttonbush (Cephalanthus occidentalis) 

Camphor pluchea (camphor weed) (Pluchea camphorata) Cockleburr (common or rough cockleburr) (Xanthium 

strumarium) 

Canada clearweed (Pilea pumila) Common (eastern) persimmon (Diospyros virginiana) 

Canada goldenrod (Solidago canadensis) Common (eastern, plains) cottonwood (Populus deltoides) 

Canada lettuce (Canada woodnettle) (Laportea canadensis) Common (lamp) rush (Juncus effusus) 

Canada lily (Lilium canadense) Common Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense)** 

Canadian (early) lousewort (Pedicularis canadensis Common fox sedge (Carex vulpinoidea) 
35 

Table 9. (continued). 

Canadian honewort (honewort) (Cryptotaenia canadensis) Common goldstar (eastern yellow star-grass) (Hypoxis hirsuta) 

Canadian rush (Juncus canadensis) Common honeylocust (Gleditsia triacanthos)

Canadian serviceberry (Amelanchier canadensis) Common meadowbeauty (handsome Harry) (Rhexia virginica)

Cardinal flower (Lobelia cardinalis) Common morning glory (Ipomoea purpurea)** 

Carolina elephantsfoot (Elephantopus carolinianus) Common sheep (red or field) sorrel (Rumex acetosella)** 

Carolina foxtail (tufted meadow-foxtail) (Alopecurus 

carolinianus) 

Common sweetleaf (Symplocos tinctoria) 

Carolina jessamine (evening trumpetflower) 

(Gelsemium sempervirens) 

Common trumpetcreeper (cow itch) (Campsis radicans) 

Carolina lily (Lilium michauxii) Common water hemlock (poison parsnip, spotted cowbane) 

(Cicuta maculata) 

Carolina primrose-willow (Ludwigia bonariensis) Common winterberry (Ilex verticillata) 

Carolina spiderlily (Hymenocallis caroliniana) Creeping eryngo (Eryngium prostratum) 

Cat greenbrier (Smilax glauca) Creeping primrose-willow (creeping waterpurslane) 

Chervil (hairy-fruit chervil) (Chaerophyllum tainturieri) Crimsoneyed (swamp) rosemallow (Hibiscus moscheutos) 

Chinese (Japanese) honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica)** Cross-vine (trumpet-flower) (Bignonia capreolata, or 

Anisostichus capreolata, A. crucifera) 

Climbing hempvine (climbing hempweed) (Mikania scandens) Curley dock (narrowleaf dock, sour dock, yellow dock) (Rumex 

crispus)** 

Clustervine (hairy clustervine) (Jacquemontia tamnifolia) Curltop ladysthumb (curleytop knotweed, curleytop 

smartweed) (Polygonum lapathifolium) 

Coastal doghobble (Leucothoe axillaris) Curly virginsbower (swamp leather flower) (Clematis crispa) 

Coastal plain (sweetscented) joepyeweed (Eupatori-adelphus 

dubius, or Eupatorium purpureum)

Cutleaf (green-head) coneflower (Rudbeckia laciniata) 

Coastal plain willow (Salix caroliniana) 

Dallas (water) grass (Paspalum dilatatum)** Dogfennel eupatorium (yankeeweed) (Eupatorium 

compositifolium) 

Dark-green (green) bulrush (Scirpus atrovirens) Dogtooth violet (Erythronium americanum) 

Darkgreen sedge (Carex venusta or C. oblita) Dotted smartweed (Polygonum punctatum) 

Deadly (poison) hemlock (poison parsley) (Conium 

maculatum)** 

Downy lobelia (Lobelia puberula) 

Dense blazing star (Liatris spicata) Drooping leucothoe (fetterbush, doghobble) (Leucothoe 

fontanesiana) 

Denseflower knotweed (Polygonum densiflorum) Drooping melonnettle (Guadeloupe cucumber) (Melothria 

pendula) 

Devil’s darning needles (virgin’s bower, Virginia bower) 

(Clematis virginiana) 

Dwarf (wooly) plantain (wooly Indianwheat) (Plantago 

elongata, or P. pusilla)

Ditch stonecrop (Virginia penthorum) (Penthorum sedoides) Dwarf St. Johnswort (Hypericum mutilum) 

Dogfennel (Eupatorium capillifolium) Dye bedstraw (stiff marsh bedstraw) Galium tinctorium)

Early (naked) St. Johnswort (Hypericum nudiflorum) Eastern poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans) 

Early meadow-rue (Thalictrum dioicum) Eastern sedge (Carex atlantica or C. incomperta) 

Early saxifrage (Saxifraga virginiensis) Eastern smooth beardtongue (Penstemon laevigatus) 

Early woodbuttercup (kidney-leafed buttercup, littleleaf 

buttercup) (Ranunculus abortivus) 

Eastern sweetshrub (Calycanthus floridus) 

Eastern baccharis (Baccharis halimifolia) Eight-flower six-weeks grass (Vulpia octoflora) 

Eastern bluestar (willow slimpod) (Amsonia tabernaemontana) 

Fairywand (Chamaelirium luteum) Fox grape (Vitis labrusca) 

Fall panic (fall panicgrass, fall panicum, western witchgrass) 

(Panicum dichotomiflorum) 

Fragrant flatsedge (rusty flat sedge) (Cyperus odoratus) 
36 

Table 9. (continued). 

Fescue sedge (Carex festucacea) Fringed loosestrife (fringed yellow loosestrife) (Lysimachia 

ciliata) 

Fiddle dock (Rumex pulcher)** Fringed sedge (Carex crinita) 

Florida anise (Florida anisetree) (Illicium floridanum)

SPOC Fringeleaf (sand) paspalum (slender crown grass, thin 

paspalum (Paspalum setaceum) 

Forked rush (Juncus dichotomus) Fringetree (white fringetree) (Chionanthus virginicus) 

Fowl manna grass (Glyceria striata) 

Giant cane (Arundinaria gigantea) Greater marsh St. Johnswort (Triadenum walteri) 

Giant ironweed (Veronia gigantea) Greater yellow lady’s slipper (Cypripedium pubescens) 

Graybark grape (Vitis cinerea var. baileyana) Green arrow arum (Virginia peltandra) (Peltandra virginica) 

Great blue lobelia (Lobelia siphilitica) Green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica) 

Greater bladder sedge (Carex intumescens) Greenwhite sedge (Carex albolutescens, or C. straminea) 

Hairy jointgrass (small carpgrass) (Arthraxon hispidus)** Hedgehog woodrush (Luzula echinata) 

Hairy woodrush (Luzula acuminata) He-huckleberry (maleberry) (Lyonia ligustrina) 

Harvestbells (moss gentian) (Gentiana saponaria) Herbwilliam (threadleaf mockbishopweed) (Ptilimnium 

capillaceum) 

Heartwing dock (heartwing sorrel) (Rumex hastatulus) Hop sedge (Carex lupulina) 

Hedge bindweed (bearbind, devil’s guts) (Calystegia sepium) 

Indian cucumber (Medeola virginiana) 

Jack-in-the-pulpit (Arisaema triphyllum) Johnson grass (Sorghum halepense)** 

Japanese mazus (Mazus pumilus)** Jumpseed (Virginia smartweed) (Polygonum virginianum) 

Japanese stiltgrass (Nepalese browntop)** (Microstegium 

vimineum) 

Juniper leaf (Polypremum procumbens) 

Jewelweed (spotted touch-me-not) (Impatiens capensis) Justiceweed (Eupatorium leucolepis) 

Joe pye weed (hollow-stemmed joe pye weed, trumpetweed (Eupatorium fistulosum) 

Kidneyleaf grass of Parnassus (Parnassia asarifolia) King of the meadow (Thalictrum pubescens) 

Lady’s-thumb (smartweed, spotted knotweed) (Polygonum 

persicaria)** 

Leatherleaf clematis (sweet autumn virginsbower, yam-leaved 

clematis) (Clematis terniflora)** 

Lanceleaf (small) greenbrier (Smilax smallii) Leathery rush (Juncus coriaceous) 

Lanceleaf loosestrife (Lysimachia lanceolata) Little bluestem (Schizachyrium scoparium, or Andropogon 

scoparius) 

Large (spotted) spurge (Chamaesyce maculata) Littlehead nutrush (Scleria oligantha) 

Largeseed (southern) forget-me-not (Myosotis macrosperma) Lizard's tail (Saururus cernuus) 

Late eupatorium (lateflowering thoroughwort) (Eupatorium 

serotinum) 

Long Beach primrose-willow (Ludwigia brevipes) 

Laurel greenbrier (Smilax laurifolia) Low spearwort (weak buttercup) (Ranunculus pusillus) 

Laurel oak (Quercus laurifolia) Low spikesedge (Kyllinga pumila) 

Leafy bulrush (Scirpus polyphyllus) 

Manyflower marshpennywort (umbrella pennyroyal) 

(Hydrocotyle umbellata) 

Mexican (red) morningglory (redstar) (Ipomoea coccinea)** 

Maritime groundcherry (white crownbeard) (Verbesina 

virginica) 

Mountain (piedmont) azalea (Rhododendron canescens) 

Marsh primrose-willow (marsh seedbox) (Ludwigia palustris) Mountain meadow-rue (Thalictrum clavatum) 

Maryland meadowbeauty (Rhexia mariana) Muscadine grape (Vitis rotundifolia) 

Meadow (tall) buttercup (Ranunculus acris)** 

Naked (smooth) elephantfoot (Elephantopus nudatus) Northern marsh yellowcress (Rorippa islandica) 
37 

Table 9. (continued). 

Needlepod rush (Juncus scirpoides) Northern spicebush (Lindera benzoin) 

Needle-tip blue-eyed grass (Sisyrinchium mucronatum) 

Orange coneflower (Rudbeckia fulgida) Owlfruit (sawbeak) sedge (stalk-grain sedge) (Carex stipata) 

Overcup oak (Quercus lyrata) 

Palespike lobelia (Lobelia spicata) Possumhaw (Ilex decidua) 

Partridgeberry (Mitchella repens) Possumhaw viburnum (Viburnum nudum) 

Pennsylvania knotweed (Pennsylvania smartweed or 

pinkweed) (Polygonum pensylvanicum) 

Post oak (Quercus stellata) 

Philadelphia daisy (fleabane) (Erigeron philadelphicus) Prickly Florida (sawtooth) blackberry (Rubus argitis) 

Piedmont rhododendron (Rhododendron minus) Primrose violet (Viola primulifolia) 

Pignut hickory (Carya glabra) Pumpkin ash (Fraxinus profunda) 

Pine barren flatsedge (Cyperus retrorsus) Purple false foxglove (Agalinis purpurea) 

Pitted (white) morning glory (whitestar) (Ipomoea lacunosa) Purplehead sneezeweed (Helenium flexuosum) 

Poor-joe (rough buttonweed) (Diodia teres) Purple-leaf willowherb (willowweed) (Epilobium coloratum) 

Red maple (Acer rubrum) River birch (Betula nigra) 

Red mulberry (Morus rubra) Rosepink (squarestem rosegentian) (Sabatia

Red turtlehead (Chelone obliqua) Rough bentgrass (Agrostis scabra) 

Ricefield flatsedge (Cyperus iria)** Roundfruit hedgehyssop (Gratiola virginiana) 

Sampson’s snakeroot (Psoralea psoralioides, or Orbexilum 

pedunculatum, O. pedunculatum var. psoralioides) 

Southern watergrass (Luziola flutans) 

Saw greenbrier (Smilax bona-nox) St. Andrew’s cross (Hypericum hypericoides) 

Shagbark hickory (Carya ovata) Stiff cowbane (Oxypolis rigidior) 

Shallow sedge (Carex lurida) Stiff dogwood (Cornus foemina) 

Sharpwing monkeyflower (Mimulus alatus) Stiff marsh bedstraw (Galium tinctorium) 

Shortbristle horned beaksedge (Rhynchospora Stout wood reed-grass (sweet wood-reed) (Cinna 

arundinacea)

Shortleaf spikesedge (Cyperus brevifolius, or Kyllinga 

brevifolia) 

Strawcolored flatsedge (strawcolored nutgrass) (Cyperus 

strigosus) 

Silky dogwood (Cornus amomum) Striped cream violet (Viola striata) 

Silver maple (Acer saccharinum) Sugar berry (sugar hackberry) (Celtis leavigata) 

Silver maple (Acer saccharinum) Summer grape (Vitis aestivalis) 

Slender woodoats (spike uniola) (Chasmanthium laxum) Swamp azalea (Rhododendron viscosum) 

Slimpod rush (Juncus diffusissimus) Swamp chestnut oak (Quercus michauxii) 

Smallflower (sticktight) buttercup (Ranunculus parviflorus)** Swamp smartweed (Polygonum hydropiperoides) (Ludwigia 

repens) 

Smallflower (waxy) thoroughwort (Eupatorium semiserratum or 

E. glaucescens) semiserratum or E. glaucescens) 

Swamp sneezeweed (swamp sunflower) (Helianthus 

angustifolius) 

Southern arrowwood (Viburnum dentatum) Sweetbay (Magnolia virginiana) 

Southern magnolia (spike uniola) (Magnolia grandiflora) Sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua) 

Southern red oak (Quercus falcata) Switchcane (Arundinaria gigantea) 

Southern rein (palegreen) orchid (Habenaria flava, or 

Platanthera flava) 

Switchgrass (old switch panic grass) (Panicum virgatum)

Thyme-leaf speedwell (Veronica serpyllifolia) Tuliptree (tulip poplar, yellow poplar) (Liriodendron tulipifera)

Tiny bluet (Houstonia pusilla) Turk’s-cap lily (Lilium superbum) 

Trumpet honeysuckle (Lonicera sempervirens) 
38 

Table 9. (continued). 

Vasey grass (Paspalum urvillei)** Virginia sweetspire (Itea virginica) 

Virginia bugleweed (Virginia water horehound) (Lycopus 

virginicus) 

Virginia threeseed mercury (Acalypha rhomboidea) 

Virginia buttonweed (Diodia virginiana) Virginia water horehound (Lycopus virginicus) 

Virginia dayflower (Commelina virginica) Virginia wild rye (Elymus virginicus) 

Virginia dwarfdandelion (Krigia virginica) 

Water oak (Quercus nigra) White verbena (white vervain) (Verbena urticifolia) 

Water primrose (Ludwigia palustris) Whiteleaf leather flower (Clematis glaucophylla) 

Water-pimpernel (Samolus parviflorus) Whorled loosestrife (whorled yellow loosestrife) (Lysimachia 

quadrifolia) 

Waterpod (Hydrolea quadrivalvis) Willow oak (Quercus phellos) 

Waterpod (Hydrolea quadrivalvis) Winged elm (Ulmus alata) 

Waxyleaf meadow-rue (Thalictrum revolutum) Wingleaf primrose-willow (wingleaf water primrose) (Ludwigia 

decurrens) 

Weedy dwarf-dandelion (Krigia cespitosa) Wingstem (Verbesina alternifolia) 

White avens (Geum canadense) Woodvamp (Decumaria barbara) 

White screwstem (Bartonia verna) Wrinkleleaf goldenrod (Solidago rugosa) 

White turtlehead (Chelone glabra) 

Yaupon (Ilex vomitoria) Yellowfruit sedge (Carex vulpinoidea or C. annectens) 

Yellow crownbeard (Verbesina occidentalis) Yellowroot (Xanthorhiza simplicissima) 

Table 10. Wetland and aquatic (A) fern species that occur in the park (NPS 2008c). 

Asplenium ladyfern (Athyrium filix-femina spp. asplenioides) – shaded woods, swamps, stream banks, acid bogs 

Broad beechfern (Thelypteris hexagonoptera, or Phegopteris hexagonoptera) – moist woodlands 

Carolina mosquitofern (Azolla caroliniana)

A

Chainfern (netted chainfern) (Woodwardia areolata) – acidic bogs, wet woods 

Cinnamon fern (Osmunda cinnamomea) – open areas in swamps 

Maidenfern (maidenhair) (Adiantum pedatum) – stream banks, shady moist woods 

New York fern (Thelypteris noveboracensis) – moist, humus-rich, deciduous woods 

Royal fern (Osmunda regalis) – swampy areas, fens, damp woodlands 

Sensitive fern (Onoclea sensibilis) – open swamps, marshes, low woods 

Beavers also were found to significantly affect native as well as exotic (see below) wetland plant 

community structure at the park through herbivory (Parker et al. 2007b). In field experiments, 

herbivory by beavers reduced aquatic plant biomass by 60% and plant litter by 75%, and also 

substantially affected wetland/aquatic plant species composition. The perennial forb lizard’s tail 

(Saururus cernuus) was less than 5% of the plant biomass in beaver-grazed areas, but was more 

than 50% of plant biomass in areas where beavers were excluded for two years. In supporting 

experiments, beavers preferentially consumed lizard’s tail over several other plants. Bulrush 

(Scirpus cyperinus) tussocks provided lizard’s tail plants an associational refuge from beaver 

herbivory.

Terrestrial Vegetation 

Appalachian and Coastal Plain species overlap into the Piedmont in the park area. The 

dominant forest cover is oak/pine (black and red oaks – Quercus velutina, Q. rubra; loblolly pine 
39 

– Pinus taeda; shortleaf pine – Pinus echinata; Virginia pine – Pinus virginiana) but, because of 

human disturbance, the landscape and vegetation cover in the Chattahoochee River corridor is 

mixed fields, forest stands, and planted trees, along with an array of introduced exotic species 

(Kunkle and Vana-Miller 2000). Other common terrestrial forest species include ash (Fraxinus

spp.), dogwood (Cornus florida), elm (Ulmus spp.), hickory (Carya ovata), sycamore (Platanus 

occidentalis), willows, (Salix spp.), and tulip trees which can also thrive in wetlands. 

Aquatic Macroinvertebrates 

From a qualitative and quantitative evaluation of the mainstem Chattahoochee River (RM 337.8 

to RM 301.3) and four tributaries (Suwanee, Crooked, Big, and Sope Creeks) in the early 1970s, 

the Georgia Water Quality Control Board (1971) reported, even at that time, that 

macroinvertebrate fauna was depauperate or lacking. Macroinvertebrates appeared to be 

adversely affected by the low-temperature waters downstream from Buford Dam. Aquatic 

macroinvertebrates in that area have been reported to be limited by the reduced thermal maxima, 

seasonally low dissolved oxygen availability, paucity of allochthonous materials upon which 

many of them feed, shifting sand substratum, and extreme fluctuations in water levels and 

current velocities at variable time scales (Nestler et al. 1984). In other efforts, GA DNR (1966) 

qualitatively sampled aquatic macroinvertebrates from seven stations on Sope Creek and 

reported only 2-12 taxa (mostly genus level). In 1973 the area was re-assessed and conditions 

were evaluated as more degraded than in 1966 (GA DNR 1973). 

A macroinvertebrate survey also was undertaken by a flyfishing guide seasonally in most years 

from 1998 through February 2005, using Hester-Dendy samplers (project duration) and a Surber 

sampler (2000-) (Eggert 2005). Sites included Bowmans Island, Settles Bridge, Jones Bridge, 

Island Ford, Morgan Falls, and Cochran Shoals. A Hilsenhoff Family Biotic Index for 

macroinvertebrates was calculated for each replicate sample, following Hilsenhoff (1988). A 

retired entomologist identified the macroinvertebrates, and the data were summarized by Eggert 

(2005). No changes in habitat quality were apparent for macroinvertebrates over the sampling 

duration. Eggert (2005) identified the need for long-term, more detailed (species-level) data on 

aquatic macroinvertebrates in the park. 

Aquatic biota (macroinvertebrate and fish) sampling is required as a responsibility of the 

counties under their MS4 stormwater permits (see p. 98 of this Report), and the data formats and 

summary information range from raw data sheets to excellent compilations by CCR 

Environmental, Inc. (2007) and CH2MHill (2008) for Fulton County (December 2006: Johns 

Creek and March Creek) and Gwinnett County (fall season each year from 2004-2007: 

Richland, Level, Suwanee and Crooked Creeks), respectively (Table 11). The Richland, Level 

and Crooked Creek stations coincide with USGS stations 233480, 234578, and 2335350, 

respectively (Figures 3 and 4); the Suwanee Creek station nearest to the park is about 3.5 miles 

upstream (Burnette Road, urbanizing area – see Table 11). The two Fulton County sites, JO-1 

and MA-1 also coincide with county water quality sampling stations (Figures 4 and 5). Forsyth 

County provided data through consultant CH2MHill for Dick Creek (station DKF-1) for 

sampling in 1999, 2005, and 2007. Data were also available from Cobb County for Rottenwood 

Creek (RT-5 – winter 1999) and Little Nancy Creek (NA2 – winter 1999, fall 2003, fall 2005). 

In these efforts, benthic macroinvertebrates were assessed under a modified Georgia 

Bioassessment Protocol (GA DNR 2007c). A total of 182 taxa were found in one or more of the 

nine streams, including 1 nematode, 8 molluscs, 16 annelids, and the remainder arthropods (157, 
40 

or 86% of the total, including about half (89 taxa) as dipterans). Based upon the 

macroinvertebrate assessment, the overall ecological condition of the streams was fair (Dick 

Creek, March Creek, Rottenwood Creek, Little Nancy Creek), poor (Richland Creek, Johns 

Creek, Crooked Creek), and very poor (Level Creek, Suwanee Creek) (Tables 11 and 12). None 

of the streams received a “good” or “very good” (the latter, indicating little disturbance) 

assessment (Table 12). 

Table 11. Available data for aquatic macroinvertebrate species present in the Park, including Richland, 

Level, Suwanee, and Crooked Creeks from sampling efforts in fall of 2004, 2005, 2006, and 2007 (CH2M 

Hill 2008a); Dick Creek from sampling efforts in 1999, 2005, and 2007 (CH2M Hill 2000, 2008b); Johns 

Creek and Marsh Creek from sampling efforts in December 2006 (CCR Environmental 2007); 

Rottenwood Creek from sampling efforts in winter 1999 (Cobb County data); and Little Nancy Creek from 

sampling efforts in winter 1999, fall 2003, and fall 2005 (Cobb County data). An asterisk (*) indicates taxa 

that were evaluated as common (10 animals or more were found) in one or more sampling efforts. Note 

that family names are included if taxa were present that were not identified below that level (x ≡ present; -

-- ≡ absent; n.s. ≡ not sampled). 

Taxon 

Richland 

Creek 

Dick 

Creek 

Level 

Creek 

Suwanee 

Creek 

Johns 

Creek 

Crooked 

Creek 

Marsh 

Creek 

Rottenwoo

d Creek 

L. Nancy 

Creek 

Nematoda x --- --- --- --- --- --- n.s. n.s. 

Mollusca 

 Corbicula fluminea x --- --- x* --- --- x n.s. n.s. 

 Fermissa rivularis --- --- x --- x --- --- n.s. n.s. 

 Ferressia sp. --- --- x --- --- --- x n.s. n.s. 

 Fossaria sp. x --- x x --- --- --- n.s. n.s. 

 Menetus dilatatus --- x --- --- --- x --- n.s. n.s. 

 Physella sp. --- x x x --- x --- n.s. n.s. 

 Pisidium sp. --- --- --- --- --- --- x n.s. n.s. 

 Sphaerium sp. --- --- --- x --- --- --- n.s. n.s. 

Annelida 

 Dero sp. --- --- x --- --- x --- n.s. n.s. 

 Hirudinea --- x --- --- --- --- --- n.s. n.s. 

 Limnodrilus hoffmeisteri --- x x x --- --- --- n.s. n.s. 

 Lumbricidae x x --- x --- x --- n.s. n.s. 

 Lumbriculidae x* x x x* x x x n.s. n.s. 

 Naididae --- x x --- --- x --- n.s. n.s. 

 Nais behningi x --- --- --- --- --- --- n.s. n.s. 

 Nais communis x x --- x --- x --- n.s. n.s. 

 Nais sp. x x x --- --- x --- n.s. n.s. 

 Pristina leidyi x x --- --- --- --- --- n.s. n.s. 

 Pristina sp. x --- --- --- --- --- --- n.s. n.s. 

 Pristinella sp. x --- --- --- --- --- --- n.s. n.s. 

 Slavina appendiculata x --- x* --- --- x --- n.s. n.s. 

 Stylaria lacustris --- x --- --- --- --- --- n.s. n.s. 

 Tubificidae w.h.c. x x x x x x --- n.s. n.s. 

 Tubificidae w.o.h.c. x* x x* x* --- x --- n.s. n.s. 

Arthropoda 

Amphipoda 

 Crangonyxsp. --- --- x x --- --- --- n.s. n.s. 

Arachnoidea 

 Atractides sp. --- --- x --- --- --- --- n.s. n.s. 

 Libertia sp. --- --- --- --- x --- --- n.s. n.s. 

Crustacea 

 Ostracoda --- x* x x --- x --- n.s. n.s. 
41 

Table 11. (continued). 

Taxon 

Richland 

Creek 

Dick 

Creek 

Level 

Creek 

Suwanee 

Creek 

Johns 

Creek 

Crooked 

Creek 

Marsh 

Creek 

Rottenwoo

d Creek 

L. Nancy 

Creek 

 Copepoda --- x x --- --- x --- n.s. n.s. 

Cladocera 

 Ceriodaphnia sp. --- --- x --- --- x --- --- --- 

 Chydoridae --- x* x --- --- --- --- --- --- 

Decopoda 

 Cambaridae x x --- x --- x --- n.s. n.s. 

 Cambarus sp. --- --- --- --- --- --- x n.s. n.s. 

 Orconectes sp. x --- --- --- --- --- --- n.s. n.s. 

 Procambarus sp. x --- x x x x --- n.s. n.s. 

Isopoda 

 Caecidotea sp. --- --- --- x --- --- --- n.s. n.s. 

Insecta 

Ephemeroptera 

 Baetis flavistriga x* x x x --- x x --- --- 

 Baetis intercalaris x* x --- x* x x --- --- --- 

 Baetis sp. x* x x --- --- x --- --- x* 

 Caenis sp. --- x --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 

 Collembola --- x --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 

 Labiobaetis sp. --- x --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 

 Maccaffertium 

 (Stenonema) modestum --- x --- --- --- --- x --- --- 

 Maccaffertium 

 (Stenonema) sp. --- x x --- x x* --- x x* 

 Pseudocloeon sp. x x x --- --- x --- --- --- 

 Tricorythodes sp. --- x --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 

Odonata 

 Argia sp. x x x x* --- x --- x x 

 Boyeria grafiana --- x --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 

 Boyeria vinosa --- x --- --- --- --- x --- --- 

 Boyeria sp. --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- x 

 Calopteryx sp. x x x --- --- --- x x --- 

 Ischnura sp. --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- x 

 Coenagrionidae --- x --- --- x --- --- --- --- 

 Enallagma sp. --- --- --- x --- --- --- --- --- 

 Gomphidae --- --- --- x --- --- --- --- --- 

 Hetaerina sp. --- x --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 

 Macromia sp. --- --- --- x --- --- --- --- --- 

 Progomphus obscurus --- x x --- --- x --- --- --- 

Hemiptera 

 Rhagovelia obesa x --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 

Heteroptera 

 Gerridae --- x --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 

 Veliidae --- x --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 

Megaloptera 

 Corydalus cornutus --- x --- --- --- --- --- x --- 

 Nigronia serricornis x --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 

 Nigronia sp. --- x --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 

 Sialis sp. --- x --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 

Plecoptera 

 Leuctra sp. --- x --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 

 Tallaperla sp. x --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 

Trichoptera 
42 

Table 11. (continued). 

Taxon 

Richland 

Creek 

Dick 

Creek 

Level 

Creek 

Suwanee 

Creek 

Johns 

Creek 

Crooked 

Creek 

Marsh 

Creek 

Rottenwoo

d Creek 

L. Nancy 

Creek 

 Cheumatopsyche sp. x* x* x* x* x x* x* x x* 

 Chimarra aterrima --- --- x --- x x x* --- --- 

 Chimarra sp. --- --- --- --- --- --- --- x x 

 Diploctrona modesta x --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 

 Eccopturaxanthenes x --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 

 Hydropsychidae x* x --- x* x --- --- --- --- 

 Hydropsyche betteri x x --- x --- x x* x x* 

 Hydropsyche sp. x* x --- --- x --- x* --- --- 

 Hydroptila sp. --- --- --- --- --- x --- --- --- 

 Lype diversa x --- x --- --- --- --- --- --- 

 Paragnetina sp. --- --- --- x --- --- --- --- --- 

 Triaenodes sp. x x x x --- --- --- --- --- 

Coleoptera 

 Anchytarsus bicolor x --- --- --- --- --- --- x --- 

 Anycronyxvariegatus x x x x --- x --- x --- 

 Curculionidae --- --- --- --- --- --- x --- --- 

 Dubiraphia sp. --- x --- --- --- --- --- x --- 

 Ectopria sp. --- --- x --- --- --- --- --- x 

 Enochrus sp. --- --- --- x --- --- --- --- --- 

 Helichus basalis --- x --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 

 Hydroporini sp. --- x --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 

 Macronychus glabratus --- x --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 

 Microcylloepus pusillus --- x --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 

 Oulimnius latiusculus --- x --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 

 Staphylinidae --- x --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 

 Stenelmis sp. x --- --- --- --- --- --- --- x 

 Ablabesmyia mallochi x x x x --- x --- x x 

 Ablabesmyia rhamphe x x x x --- x --- --- --- 

 Anopheles sp. --- --- x --- --- x --- --- --- 

 Antocha sp. x --- --- --- --- --- --- x x 

 Atrichopogon sp. --- x --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 

 Bezzia/Palpomyia sp. gp. --- x --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 

 Brillia flavifrons x --- --- --- x x x --- --- 

 Brillia sp. --- --- --- --- --- --- --- x --- 

 Cardiocladius obscurus --- --- --- --- --- --- x* --- x 

 Ceratopogonidae --- x --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 

 Chelifera sp. --- x --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 

 Chironomidae --- x --- --- --- --- --- --- x 

 Chironomus sp. x x x* --- --- x --- x --- 

 Cladopelma sp. --- x --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 

 Cladotanytarsus sp. --- x* --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 

 Clinotanypus sp. --- x --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 

 Conchapelopia sp. x* x x* x* --- x x --- --- 

 Corynoneura sp. x* x x x x x x --- x 

 Cricotopus bicinctus x x --- x*x x x --- --- 

 Cricotopus sp. x x x x*x x x x x 

 Cryptochironomus sp. x x x x --- x --- x x 

 Culicidae --- --- --- --- x --- --- --- 

 Diamesinae sp. --- --- --- --- --- --- --- x x 

 Dicrotendipes 

 neomodestus --- --- x* --- --- x x --- --- 

 Dicrotendipes sp. --- x* --- --- --- x --- x --- 
43 

Table 11. (continued). 

Taxon 

Richland 

Creek 

Dick 

Creek 

Level 

Creek 

Suwanee 

Creek 

Johns 

Creek 

Crooked 

Creek 

Marsh 

Creek 

Rottenwoo

d Creek 

L. Nancy 

Creek 

 Dixella sp. --- x --- --- --- --- --- --- 

 Empididae --- x--- --- --- --- --- --- --- 

 Endochrionomus sp. --- x --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 

 Eukiefferiella claripennis --- --- --- x --- x --- x 

 Eukiefferiella sp. --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- x 

 Hemerodromia sp. x x x x --- --- --- x x 

 Labrundinia sp. --- x x x --- x --- --- --- 

 Limonia sp. --- --- --- --- --- --- --- x --- 

 Lopescladius sp. --- --- --- --- --- x --- --- --- 

 Microtendipes pedullus --- x x --- x --- x --- --- 

 Microtendipes sp. --- ------ --- --- --- --- x --- 

 Nabrundinia sp. --- --- x x --- x --- --- --- 

 Nanocladius distinctusx --- --- x x x x --- --- 

 Nanocladius sp. --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- x 

 Nilotanypus sp. --- --- --- --- --- x --- --- --- 

 Orthocladius lignicola --- --- x --- --- --- --- --- --- 

 Orthocladius sp. --- --- --- x --- --- x* x x 

 Paracladopelma sp. --- --- x --- --- x --- --- --- 

 Parakiefferiella sp. x x x x xx x --- x x 

 Paralauterborniella 

 nigrohalteralis --- x x --- x --- 

 Parametriocnemus 

 lundbecki --- x --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 

 Parametriocnemus sp. --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- x 

 Paratendipes sp. x x x* --- --- --- --- --- x 

 Phaenopsectra obediens 

 group --- --- --- --- --- --- --- x x 

 Phaenopsectra punctipes --- --- x --- --- --- --- --- --- 

 Phaenopsectra sp. --- --- --- --- --- --- --- x x 

 Polypedilum convictum --- x --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 

 Polypedilum fallax x x x x --- x--- --- --- 

 Polypedilum flavum x* --- x* x* --- x --- --- --- 

 Polypedilum halterale x x x x --- x --- --- --- 

 Polypedilum illinoense x* x x x --- x* --- --- --- 

 Polypedilum sp. --- --- --- --- --- --- --- x x 

 Potthastia longimana x --- x --- --- --- --- --- --- 

 Procladius sp. --- x x x --- --- --- --- --- 

 Prodiamesa olivacea x --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 

 Prosimulium sp. --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- x 

 Psectrocladius sp. x --- --- --- --- x --- --- --- 

 Pseudochironomus sp. --- --- --- x --- --- --- --- --- 

 Pseudorthocladius sp. --- x --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 

 Rheocricotopus robacki x x x x* x x --- --- x 

 Rheocricotopus sp. --- --- --- --- --- --- --- x x 

 Rheosmittia sp. x* x* x x --- x --- --- --- 

 Rheotanytarsus exiguus x --- --- x* x x x --- --- 

 Rheotanytarsus sp. x* x x* x* --- x* --- x x 

 Robackia demeijerei x* x --- x x x --- --- --- 

 Saetheria tylus x x x* --- --- x* --- --- --- 

 Simulium sp. x x --- --- x* x x* x x* 

 Stenochironomus sp. x x x x x x --- x x 

 Synorthocladius sp. --- --- --- --- --- --- --- x --- 

 Tanytarsus sp. x* x x* x x x --- x x 
44 

Table 11. (continued). 

Taxon 

Richland 

Creek 

Dick 

Creek 

Level 

Creek 

Suwanee 

Creek 

Johns 

Creek 

Crooked 

Creek 

Marsh 

Creek 

Rottenwoo

d Creek 

L. Nancy 

Creek 

 Thienemanniellaxena x* x --- x* --- x x --- --- 

 Thienemannimyia group --- x --- --- --- --- --- --- x 

 Tipulidae x--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 

 Tribelos jucundus x--- x* --- --- x --- --- --- 

 Trebelos sp. --- --- x x --- x --- --- --- 

 Tvetenia paucunca --- --- --- x x* x x --- --- 

 Simulium sp. x --- x --- --- x --- --- --- 

 Tipula sp. x x x --- x x x x x 

 Trichoclinocera sp. --- x --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 

 Tvetenia bavarica group --- x --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 

 Tvetenia sp. --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- x 

Xylotopus par --- x --- --- --- --- --- --- 

 Zavrelia sp. --- x --- --- x --- --- --- 

 Zavrelimyia sp. x --- --- x x --- --- --- 

Total taxa 73 101 70 59 28 73 29 31 39 

Ecological Condition Poor Fair* 

Very 

Poor Very Poor Poor Poor 

Fair/ 

Poor Fair Fair 

* Ecological condition is denoted for Dick Creek considering 1999, 2000, and 2005 data only. New GA DNR (2007c) standard operating 

procedures for macroinvertebrate biological assessment no longer have qualitative ratings and do not use reference reaches for bioassessments. 

Therefore, an assessment rating narrative description is not available for Dick Creek considering the available 2007 data. 

Other available information on bivalve molluscs is also discouraging. The southeastern U.S. was 

once known to have the highest mussel diversity in North America (Burch 1975, Turgeon et al. 

1998). The Appalachicola River basin had the highest number of species of freshwater 

gastropods and bivalves, the most endemic species, and the highest proportion of endemic 

species to total molluscan fauna of the western Florida rivers (Johnson 1972). Historically, 45 

unionid mussel species were present in the Appalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint River basin 

(Couch et al. 1996). During the 1900s, however, at least 7% of the mussel fauna have become 

extinct, more than 40% are federally listed as threatened or endangered, and 24% are species of 

special concern, with the status of 5% undetermined (Williams and Neves 1995). Surveys in the 

upper Chattahoochee River during the late 1950s - late 1960s detected only eight mussel species 

(Brim Box and Williams 2000). 

In 1998 the U.S. FWS listed five mussel species (fat three-ridge - Amblema neislerii, shinyrayed 

pocketbook - Lampsilis subangulata, Gulf moccasinshell - Medionidus penicillatus, Ochlockonee 

moccasinshell - Medionidus simpsonianus, and oval pigtoe - Pleurobema pyriforme) as 

endangered, and two species (Chipola slabshell - Elliptio chipolaensis, purple bankclimber - 

Elliptoideus sloatianus) as threatened (U.S. FWS 1998). A freshwater mussel status survey 

conducted in November 2003 at 18 sites in the park detected no live mussels, and only one 

highly weathered shell (the latter, from a species called sculptured pigtoe, Quincuncina 

infucata) (O’Brien and Brim Box 2003). Aquatic snails were found at only one site; even the 

exotic Asian clam (Corbicula fluminea) was absent at 7 of the 18 sites surveyed. Finally, 

GeoSyntec Consultants (2006) surveyed the Morgan Falls area for rare, threatened and 

endangered species. They noted that the shinyrayed pocketbook and Gulf moccasinshell 

historically occurred in that area, but found no populations and concluded that the two species 

apparently have been extirpated from the Morgan Falls area of the mainstem Chattahoochee 

River. 
45 

Table 12. Macroinvertebrate community ratings and attributes (GA DNR 2004). The number of streams 

surveyed in the past decade in or near the park (9 in total) is indicated under the respective evaluation 

category (Biological Condition Category) in the left column. 

Biological 

Condition 

Category 

% Comparability 

to Reference 

Score 

Attributes

Very Good > 83% Comparable to the best situation to be expected within an ecoregion. A 

balanced trophic structure, with an optimum community composition for 

the stream size and habitat. Exceptional or unusual assemblages of 

species are usually present, with sensitive species abundant. Species 

richness is high and the stream exhibits outstanding conditions. 

Good 74 – 82% A relatively balanced community composition, with a balanced trophic 

structure. Species richness is relatively high for the stream size and 

habitat present, and sensitive species are present. 

Fair 

(4 of 9 streams) 

49 – 73% Community composition is lower than expected due to a loss of 

intolerant taxa, with an increase in the percent contribution of tolerant 

forms. The community structure (composition and dominance) for 

stream size and habitat quality is adequate. Some expected species are 

absent or in low abundance. 

Poor 

(3 of 9 streams) 

25 – 48% Fewer taxa due to the loss of most intolerant forms. An overall reduction 

in EPT taxa.* Community structure and habitat quality are less than 

desirable but do meet expectations in some areas. Expected species 

are absent or in low numbers. Streams in this category exhibit low 

species richness, with tolerant species predominating. Sensitive species 

are absent. These streams exhibit significant levels of habitat 

degradation at increasing frequencies. 

Very Poor 

(2 of 9 streams) 

< 25% Assigned to streams with few species present, with only the most 

tolerant species remaining. The community is lacking diversity, with few 

or no EPT taxa.* Extreme habitat degradation has substantially altered 

the stream’s characteristics. 

* EPT ≡ Ephemeroptera (mayflies), Plecoptera (stoneflies), and Trichoptera (caddisflies). 

The authors of the 2000-2003 survey attributed the absence of mussel fauna in the park area to 

habitat alterations, especially dam construction and associated habitat fragmentation, bank 

erosion, streambed scour, sedimentation/pollution and other habitat degradation, hydrologic 

changes, other species changes such as declines of required host fish, and increased temperatures 

/ decreased dissolved oxygen concentrations in impounded water (O’Brien and Brim Box 2003). 

Some if not most or all of the endemic threatened and endangered species also have had to 

compete for habitat, unsuccessfully, with the exotic Asian clam (see below). 

Fish 

Releases of cold water from Buford Dam have altered the natural thermal regime of the river, 

and colder water temperatures have enabled development of a nonnative trout fishery 

downstream from Lake Lanier to Atlanta (Couch et al. 1996 – see below). Cold water is drawn 

through turbines from the reservoir hypolimnion at a depth of ca. 68 feet, so that the tailrace 

water is cold year-round (Gilbert and Reinert 1978, Kunkle and Vana-Miller 2000). Fluctuating 

flows change the species composition and abundance of fish differently in shoreline versus 

midstream habitats. Shoreline species are most adversely affected and the extent of the change 

depends on the severity of flow regime alteration and distance downstream from a dam (Bain 

and Boltz 1989, Kunkle and Vana-Miller 2000). 
46 

Table 13. Fish species listed as present or probably present (*) in park waters emphasizing the 

Chattahoochee River, documented through one or more types of evidence as references, vouchers, and 

observations (NPS 2008c; also GeoSyntec Consultants 2006, for the highscale shiner). Double asterisk 

(**) ≡ non-native species; NH ≡ not listed in historical records; NNPS ≡ small cryptic species not listed in 

NPS (2008c), but common in wetlands and small ponds in the general area and considered to be present. 

SPOC ≡ species of concern. 

Alabama hogsucker (Hypentelium etowanum) Greater jumprock (Moxostoma lachneri)* 

American gizzard shad (hickory shad, mud shad, skipjack) 

(Dorosoma cepedianum) 

Green sunfish (Lepomis cyanellus) 

Asian swamp eel (rice eel, swamp eel) (Monopterus albus)** NH Highscale shiner (Notropis hypsilepis) a, NNPS, SPOC 

Banded sculpin (Cottus carolinae) Largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides) 

Bandfin shiner (Luxilus zonistius)* Longnose shiner (Notropis longirostris)* 

Black bullhead (Ameiurus melas)* Mosquitofish (Gambusia affinis)NNPS 

Black crappie (Pomoxis nigromaculatus) Mottled sculpin (Cottus cf. bairdi) 

Blackbanded darter (Percina nigrofasciata) Quillback (quillback carpsucker) (Carpiodes cyprinus)* 

Blacktail shiner (Cyprinella venusta) Rainbow trout (redband trout, steelhead) 

(Oncorhynchus mykiss) 

Bluefin stoneroller (Cyprinella callitaenia)* Red shiner (rainbow dace) (Cyprinella lutrensis)*, ** 

Bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus) Redbreast sunfish (Lepomis auritus) 

Bluehead chub (Nocomis leptocephalus) Redear sunfish (Lepomis microlophus) 

Bluestripe shiner (Cyprinella callitaenia)

SPOC Shadow bass (Ambloplites ariommus)* 

Bowfin (Amia calva) Shoal bass (Micropterus cataractae)** 

Brook trout (char, salter, sea trout) (Salvelinus fontinalis)* Silverjaw minnow (Notropis buccatus)* 

Brown bullhead (Ameiurus nebulosus) Smallmouth bass (Micropterus dolomieu)* 

Brown trout (Salmo trutta)

NH Snail bullhead (Ameiurus brunneus) 

Chain pickerel (Esox niger) Southern brookLamprey (Ichthyomyzon gagei)* 

Channel (graceful) catfish (Ictalurus punctatus) ** Spottail shiner 

(Notropis hudsonius)NH 

Southern studfish (Fundulus stellifera)* 

Clear chub (Hybopsis cf. winchelli)* Spotted bass (Micropterus punctulatus)* 

Common (European) carp (Cyprinus carpio)** Spotted sucker (Minytrema melanops)* 

Creek chub (creek chubsucker) (Semotilus atromaculatus)* Striped jumprock (Moxostoma rupiscartes)* 

Dixie chub (Semotilus thoreauianus)* Tadpole madtom (Noturus gyrinus) 

Eastern mosquitofish (Gambusia holbrooki) Warmouth (Chaenobryttus gulosus) 

Flat bullhead (Ameiurus platycephalus)* White sucker (Catostomus commersonii) 

Golden shiner (Notemigonus crysoleucas)* Yellow perch (Perca flavescens) 

Goldfish (Carassius auratus L.)** Yellowfin shiner (Notropis lutipinnis) 

Grass (redfin) pickerel (Esox americanus) 

Species Apparently Extirpated a

 

Unidentified buffalo (Ictiobus sp.) Grayfin redhorse (Moxostoma sp. cf. poecilurum) White 

catfish (Ameiurus catus) 

White crappie (Pomoxis annularis) Redeye bass (Micropterus coosae) 

Yellow bullhead (Ameiurus natalis) Speckled madtom (Noturus leptacanthus) 

Black madtom (Noturus funebris) Stoneroller (Campostoma anomalum) 

a

 Based on Gilbert and Reinert (1978), Hess (1981), Couch et al. (1995), DeVivo (1996), and Kunkle and Vana-Miller (2000). 

This section pertains to the entire park area and omits consideration of apparent extirpations from specific tributaries. For 

example, the bluestripe shiner, included in the NPS (2008c) list of fish species still present or probably present in the park, was 

described by GeoSyntec Consultants (2006) as having formerly occurred in Big Creek but has not been collected in the area near 

Morgan Falls Dam since the 1950s and likely has been extirpated from that area. The status of one species, the high- scale 

shiner, is in question (see SPOC section below). The goldfish was listed as present in Rottenwood Creek (sampled 11 May 99 – 

Cobb County data). 
47 

Table 14. Fish species found in three tributaries – Sope Creek, Rottenwood Creek, and Willeo Creek – of 

the Chattahoochee River in the park area in the early 1990s (most recent information available, except for 

Dick Creek – also see Table 14), with information about abundance. X ≡ present; ---- ≡ absent. From 

Couch et al. (1995) and DeVivo (1996). 

Species Sope Creek Rottenwood Creek Willeo Creek

Alabama hogsucker Common Common Common 

Bandfin shiner Common ---- x 

Black crappie (Willeo) ---- ---- x 

Blackbanded darter Common x Common 

Bluefin stoneroller Common x x 

Bluegill Common Common Common 

Bluehead chub Common ---- Common 

Brown bullhead ---- x ---- 

Creek chub x ---- ---- 

Fathead minnow Common ---- Common 

Flat bullhead x 

Golden shiner x Common ---- 

Green sunfish x Common Common 

Green x bluegill hybrid 

(Lepomis cyanellus x macrochirus) ---- x ---- 

Largemouth bass x x x 

Mosquitofish ---- Common x 

Red shiner ---- Common x 

Redbreast sunfish Common Common Common 

Redbreast sunfish x green hybrid 

(Lepomis auritus x cyanellus) ---- x ---- 

Redbreast sunfish x bluegill hybrid 

(Lepomis auritus x macrochirus) x x ---- 

Redear sunfish ---- ---- x 

Snail bullhead Common x ---- 

Southern studfish x ---- x 

Warmouth x x x 

White sucker x x --- 

Yellowfin shiner Common ---- Common 

Fish in the park area have substantially declined in species richness over time, while numbers of 

exotic species have increased. Historically (late 1970s – early 1980s), 50 fish species (42 native, 

8 non-native) were reported in the Chattahoochee River (Buford Dam to Peachtree Creek) and 

some of its tributaries (Richland, Crooked, Dick, Level, Johns, James, Suwanee, and Big Creeks; 

Couch et al. 1995). However, surveys conducted in the early 1990s, including about 70% of the 

tributaries in the park, yielded only 35 species (Kunkle and Vana-Miller 2000) (Tables 13 and 

14). Similarly, 27 species (including 3 hybrids) were found in three tributaries of the 

Chattahoochee River (Sope Creek, Rottenwood Creek, and Willow Creek) in the early 1990s. 

The NPS (2008c) lists 53 species as present (31 species, including 5 exotics) or “probably 

present” (21 species) – thus, 31 species have been verified as still present in the park, 

includingstocked brown trout and two relatively new exotic invasive species, the Asian swamp 
48 

eel and the red shiner (see below). Based on comparison of historic with more recent, although 

sparse, data, at least ten species apparently have been extirpated (Table 13). 

More recent data on fish species present in Richland, Level, Suwanee, Crooked, Johns, and 

March Creeks near the park (Table 15) were collected and assessed using the Index of Biotic 

Integrity (IBI) criteria (Table 16) developed for fish communities in the Piedmont Ecoregion 

(GA DNR 2007d), following Barbour et al. (1999). Fish sampling was conducted at Johns and 

March Creeks in October and November of 2006; sampling of the other three streams was 

conducted in October 2005 (CH2M Hill 2007). CH2M Hill (2000, 2008b) reported data for Dick 

Creek as well (July/Aug. 1999, July 2005, Aug. 2007). Data were also collected by Cobb 

County, using IBI criteria, for Rottenwood Creek (May 1999) and Little Nancy Creek (May 

1999, Aug 2004). The data indicate that fish community health in these streams is poor (Dick 

Creek, Crooked Creek, Little Nancy Creek) or very poor (Richland Creek, Suwanee Creek, 

Marsh Creek, Rottenwood Creek), except in Johns Creek where fish community health was 

evaluated as “fair” (CCR Environmental, Inc. 2007, CH2M Hill 2007) (see p.114 of this Report). 

The most common species remaining in one or more of these streams were the Alabama 

hogsucker, bluefin stoneroller, bluegill, bluehead chub, creek chub, and yellowfin shiner. Many 

of the fish species found in the 2005 survey were represented by one to a few individuals in only 

one stream (CH2M Hill 2007). 

The Chattahoochee River is the southernmost habitat in the U.S. for trout, and the state of 

Georgia stocks rainbow, brook and brown trout in park river segments. The USFWS-operated 

Chattahoochee Forest Hatchery produces about one million trout per year, but most of them are 

stocked (in cooperation with GA DNR and the USACE) into tailwaters, streams and reservoirs in 

northern Georgia (Fannin County and surrounding area (U.S. FWS 2007; P. Thompson, GA

DNR, pers. comm., 2008). The Buford Hatchery (Plate 9), operated by GA DNR, is the source 

of most of the trout that are stocked into the Chattahoochee River in the park at access sites from 

the Buford Dam downstream to Paces Mill. The optimal flow for trout is less than WS-operated 

Chattahoochee Forest Hatchery produces about one million trout per year, but most of them are 

stocked (in cooperation with GA DNR and the USACE) into tailwaters, streams and reservoirs in 

northern Georgia (Fannin County and surrounding area (U.S. FWS 2007; P. Thompson, GA 

DNR, pers. comm., 2008). The Buford Hatchery (Plate 9), operated by GA DNR, is the source 

of most of the trout that are stocked into the Chattahoochee River in the park at access sites from 

the Buford Dam downstream to Paces Mill. The optimal flow for trout is less than 2,000 cfs, and 

the reach of the Chattahoochee from Morgan Falls Dam down to Peachtree Creek provides the 

most valuable trout habitat because of abundant shoals – wide, shallow areas with a steep 

gradient (12.5 feet per mile) and bedrock/ boulder substrata (Nestler et al. 1984) (Plate 10). 
49 

Table 15. Fish species in eight streams of the park area, sampled in October 2005 (Richland, Suwanee, 

and Crooked Creeks); 1999, 2005 and 2007 (Dick Creek); October - November 2006 (Johns and Marsh 

Creeks); 1999 (Rottenwood Creek); and 1999 and 2004 (Little Nancy Creek). Asterisks (*) indicate taxa 

that were evaluated as abundant. The data for Richland Creek, Suwanee Creek, Johns Creek, Crooked 

Creek, and Marsh Creek are from CH2M Hill (2007); the data for Dick Creek are from CH2M Hill (2000, 

2008b); and the data for Rottenwood Creek and Little Nancy Creek are from Cobb County. The 

Ecological Condition (Biotic Integrity Class) is also noted. 

Taxon 

Richland 

Creek 

Dick 

Creek 

Suwanee 

Creek 

Johns 

Creek 

Crooked 

Creek 

Marsh 

Creek 

Rottenwood 

Creek 

L. Nancy 

Creek 

Alabama 

hogsucker x x* x x* x --- x x 

Blackbanded 

darter --- x x x x --- x --- 

Bluefin stoneroller --- x* --- x* x x* --- x 

Bluegill x x* x x* x --- x x* 

Bluehead chub x x* x x* x --- --- x* 

Brown bullhead --- x --- --- --- --- x x 

Creek chub x x --- x --- x* --- --- 

Golden shiner --- x --- --- x --- --- x 

Goldfish --- --- --- --- --- --- x --- 

Green sunfish x x* x x x x x x* 

Largemouth bass --- x --- x x --- --- x 

Longnose shiner --- --- --- x --- --- --- x 

Mosquitofish --- --- x --- --- --- x --- 

Mottled sculpin --- x --- --- --- --- --- --- 

Red shiner --- --- --- --- --- --- x --- 

Redbreast sunfish x x* x x x x x x 

Redear sunfish --- --- --- x --- --- x --- 

Snail bullhead --- x x x --- --- x x 

Southern studfish --- x --- x --- --- --- --- 

Spottail shiner --- --- x --- --- --- --- --- 

Spotted bass --- ------ --- --- --- x --- 

Spotted sucker --- --- x --- --- --- --- --- 

Striped jumprock --- --- --- x --- --- --- --- 

Sunfish hybrid --- x x --- --- --- x x 

Tadpole madtom --- x --- x --- --- --- --- 

Warmouth --- --- x --- x --- x x 

White sucker --- --- --- x --- --- x x 

Yellow bullhead --- --- --- --- --- --- x x 

Yellowfin shiner x x* --- x* --- --- --- x* 

Total Species 7 17 12 17 10 4 16 16 

Ecological 

Condition 

Very 

Poor 

Poor Very Poor Poor Poor Very 

Poor 

Very Poor Poor 

The river in the park vicinity thus provides a valuable recreational fishery resource for greater 

metropolitan Atlanta (e.g. Plate 11). Angler use on the Chattahoochee River has been tracked by 

creel surveys in 1983, 1990 and 2000. Older surveys listed harvest of stocked trout at 85% 

(1983 – Martin 1985) and 63% (1990 – unpubl. data reported by Klein 2003). The number of 

catchable trout stocked below Buford dam increased from ca. 130,000 in 1983, to 181,000 in 

1990, to ca. 354,000 by 1997 (Kunkle and Vana-Miller 2000, Klein 2003). Fishing pressure was 

assumed to be high and increasing based on past studies. During 2000, however, evaluation 

ofmortality of stocked catchable (length 228 mm) rainbow trout and brown trout indicated that 

(i) annual mortality was 69% (rainbow trout) to 87% (brown trout); (ii) natural mortality was 

considerably higher than fishing mortality for both species; and (iii) exploitation rates for both 

species were below 17% (Klein 2003). During 2000-2002, ca. 192,000 - 284,000 rainbow trout 

and 33,200 - 44,800 brown trout were stocked per year in the Buford Dam tailwaters by the GA 
50 

DNR-WRD. Thereafter (2003-2006, most recent statistics available), ca. 130,400 -152,100 

rainbow trout have been stocked per year. About 24,200 - 24,600 brown trout were stocked in 

2003-2004; further stocking of browns has not been done because a population has established 

and appears to be doing well on its own (P. Thompson, GA DNR-WRD, pers. comm., 2008). 

Most of the fish stocked are 9-10 inches in length, but about 30,000 trout are grown to 12 or 

more inches for a delayed harvest fishery (B. Couch, GA DNR, pers. comm., 2008). 

Table 16. Fish IBI Scores, Biotic Integrity Classes, and associated attributes (GA DNR 2005). 

Total IBI 

Score 

Integrity 

Class Attributes 

52-60 Excellent Comparable to the best situations without human disturbance; all 

regionally expected species, including most intolerant ones; 

balanced trophic structure 

44-50 Good Species richness somewhat below expectations due to loss of 

some intolerant species; trophic structure showing some signs of 

stress trophic structure 

34-42 Fair Fewer species than expected, including loss of intolerant 

species; skewed 

26-32 Poor Dominated by tolerant species, habitat generalists, or omnivores; 

few top Carnivores; hybrids and diseased fish often present 

 8-24 Very Poor Few fish present, mostly introduced or tolerant forms, hybrids; 

disease and other health-related anomalies; stream community is 

highly stressed 

Plate 9. Scenes from the Buford Hatchery. Photos by E. Morris, 2008. 

Plate 10. Snag (Island Ford) and boulder/riffle habitats (Cochran Shoals) in park waters. Photos by E. 

Morris, 2008.
51 

Plate 11. Some anglers in park waters. Photos by E. Morris, 2008.

Amphibians and Reptiles 

A total of 63 reptiles and amphibians have been reported from the park, including 23 species of 

amphibians (12 frogs and toads, and 11 newts and salamanders) and 40 species of reptiles (9 

lizards, 22 snakes, 9 turtles) (Table 17). In a comparison of 16 parks that included this park, 

Tuberville et al. (2005) noted that larger parks had higher species richness (Figure 16). Yet, 

although this park was among the smaller parks in areal extent, and although this park is 

fragmented with considerable border area, it was second from the highest in number of native 

species. The backwater and floodplain pools in the park, as well as areas of confluence of the 

river with its tributaries, provide important habitat for herpetofauna. 

Figure 16. Relationship between land area (in hectares) and herpetofauna species richness, excluding 

exotic (introduced) species, among 16 parks within the Southeast Coast Network of the NPS, including 

this park, showing the strong positive linear relationship between (log-transformed) land area and species 

richness (P = 0.001). From Tuberville et al. (2005), with permission from Southeastern Naturalist. 
52 

Table 17. Herpetofauna of the park, documented through one or more types of evidence as references, 

vouchers, and observations (NPS 2004b, Tuberville et al. 2005). Asterisk (*) ≡ probably present (cited on 

the OCMU species list but not documented in the most current inventory); double asterisk (**) ≡ nonnative species. 

AMPHIBIANS 

Frogs and Toads 

American bullfrog (Rana catesbeiana) Green frog (Rana clamitans) 

American toad (Bufo americanus) Northern cricket frog (Acris crepitans) 

Eastern narrow-mouthed toad (Gastrophryne 

carolinensis) Pickerel frog (Rana palustris) 

Eastern spadefoot (Scaphiopus holbrookii) Southeastern chorus frog (Pseudacris feriarum) 

Fowler’s toad (Bufo fowleri) Southern (Florida) leopard frog (Rana spenocephala) 

Gray (Cope’s gray) treefrog (Hyla versicolor) Spring peeper (Pseudacris crucifer) 

Newts and Salamanders 

Dusky salamander (Desmognathus fuscus) Southern redbacked salamander (Plethodon serratus) 

Eastern newt (Notophthalmus viridescens) Southern two-lined salamander (Eurycea cirrigera) 

Marbled salamander (Ambystoma opacum) Spotted salamander (Ambystoma maculatum) 

Red salamander (Pseudotriton ruber) Spring salamander (Gyrinophilus porphyriticus) 

Seal salamander (Desmognathus monticola) Three-lined salamander (Eurycea guttolineata) 

Slimy salamander (Plethodon glutinosus) 

REPTILES 

Lizards 

Broadheaded skink (Eumeces laticeps) Little brown (ground) skink (Scincella lateralis) 

Eastern fence lizard (Sceloporus undulatus) Six-lined racerunner (Cnemidophorus sexlineatus) 

Eastern glass lizard (Ophisaurus ventralis) Slender glass lizard (Ophisaurus attenuatus) 

Five-lined (common) skink (Eumeces fasciatus) Southeastern five-lined skink (Eumeces inexpectatus) 

Green anole (Anolis carolinensis) 

Snakes 

Brownsnake (Storeria dekayi or S. victa) Plain-bellied watersnake (Nerodia erythrogaster) 

Common garter snake (Thamnophis sirtalis)* Queensnake (Regina septemvittata) 

Common kingsnake (Lampropeltis getula) Racer (eastern racer) (Coluber constrictor) 

Corn snake (Elaphe guttata) Redbellied snake (Storeria occipitomaculata) 

Eastern hog-nosed snake (Heterodon platirhinos) Ring-necked snake (Diadophis punctatus) 

Eastern ribbon snake (Thamnophis sauritus) Rough green snake (Opheodrys aestivus)** 

Eastern rat snake (Elaphe obsoleta) Scarletsnake (Cemophora coccinea) 

Eastern worm snake (Carphophis amoenus) Smooth earth snake (Virginia valeriae) 

Florida redbellied cooter (Pseudemys nelsoni) Southeastern crowned snake (Tantilla coronata) 

Milksnake (Lampropeltis triangulum) 

Southern (common) copperhead (Agkistrodon

contortrix) 

Northern water snake (Nerodia sipedon) Yellowbellied kingsnake (Lampropeltis calligaster) 

Turtles 

Common (eastern) box turtle (Terrapene carolina) Eastern painted turtle (Chrysemys picta) 

Common (eastern) mud turtle (Kinosternon subrubrum) Loggerhead musk turtle (Sternotherus minor) 

Common musk turtle (stinkpot) (Sternotherus odoratus) River cooter (Pseudemys concinna) 

Common (pond) slider (Trachemys scripta) Spiny softshell (Apalone spinifera) 

Common snapping turtle (Chelydra serpentina) 
53 

Birds 

The NPS (2008c) lists 191 species of birds that have been observed in the park, and along with 

recent sitings of whooping cranes (A. Reynolds, pers. comm., 2006), 25% (48) of the 192 species 

are associated with aquatic habitats (Table 18). The park’s location at the southern terminus of 

the Appalachian Mountains and forest acreage make it especially attractive habitat for birds, 

particularly during spring and fall migrations. Nearby Kennesaw Mountain National Battlefield 

Park has been designated a globally Important Bird Area (IBA Programme of BirdLife 

International: http://www.birdlife.org), the first area so designated in the state, and a focus area 

for bird conservation (Cooper 2000). The number of bird species reported for the two parks is 

similar (191 versus 185), and includes a large percentage of neotropical migrants. 

No federally listed threatened or endangered avian species are known to nest in the park (Watson 

2005). Audubon WatchList has indicated that the cerulean warbler is declining, and that the 

major threat mentioned for this species is development and urban sprawl (Audubon 2002). 

Mammals 

Based on a survey of the park in 2003 (excluding bats), together with information from museum 

collections, a total of 44 species of mammals are present (40) or probably present (4) in the park 

(Table 19). Six species are associated with aquatic habitats, including the American beaver, 

American mink, marsh rice rat, muskrat, northern river otter, and swamp rabbit (the latter listed 

as probably present). Five exotic species are listed as present, none of which are associated with 

aquatic habitats. The USGS (2008) also indicated a high probability for the big brown bat 

(Eptesicus fuscus), eastern red bat (Lasiurus borealis), ground skink (Scincella lateralis), and 

hoary bat (Lasiurus cinereus) to be present in the park vicinity. Three species (American black 

bear, Ursus americanus; mountain lion, Puma concolor; red wolf, Canis rufus) have been 

extirpated. The eastern woodrat (Neotoma floridana) is also native to the area, but there was no 

evidence of its occurrence in the park. 

This is a narrow park with a large perimeter surrounded by development that prevents or 

restricts immigration and emigration (Heaney and Patterson 1986, Trani 2002) and accelerates 

impacts of pollution within the isolated park grounds. Carnivores, which generally have large 

home ranges, would be expected to be disproportionately affected (Golly 1962, Matthiae and 

Stearns 1981, Choate et al. 1994). Coyotes, which have extended their natural range, and exotic 

feral cats are carnivores that are better adapted to live near urbanized settings and at least 

partially occupy the niches that previously were occupied by the carnivores that have been 

extirpated. White-tailed deer and beavers are two species of concern in the park, and populations 

of both appear to be on the increase. Beavers are “ecosystem engineers” whose dam-building 

activities alter water flow and water quality. They can cause considerable damage and loss of 

desirable tree species and other wetland/aquatic vegetation (e.g. Parker et al. 2007b) (Plate 12). 

In terrestrial habitats, high deer populations consume forest understory species, so their grazing 

can lead to depressed forest regeneration. Five species, the cotton mouse, eastern fox squirrel, 

eastern spotted skunk, oldfield mouse, and woodchuck, are of concern as potentially problematic 

native encroaching species. 
54 

Table 18. Bird species that have been observed at the park (NPS 2008c). Asterisk (*) ≡ species 

documented near the park, and the park has appropriate habitat; asterisks (**) ≡ non-native species; L ≡

listed (imperiled); SPOC ≡ species of concern. 

Species associated with aquatic habitats 

American bittern (Botaurus lentiginosus) Louisiana waterthrush (Seiurus motacilla) 

American coot (Fulica americana) Mallard (Anas platyrhynchos) 

American pipit (Anthus rubescens) Marsh wren (Cistothorus palustris) 

Belted kingfisher (Ceryle alcyon) Merlin (Falco columbarius) 

Bonaparte’s gull (Larus philadelphia) Northern pintail (Anas acuta) 

Blue-winged teal (Anas discors) Northern shoveler (Anas clypeata) 

Canada goose (Branta canadensis) Northern waterthrush (Seiurus noveboracensis) 

Cattle egret (Bulbulcus ibis) Osprey (Pandion haliaetus) 

Common loon (Gavia Immer) Pectoral sandpiper (Calidris melanotos) 

Common snipe (Gallinago gallinago) Pied-billed grebe (Podilymbus podiceps) 

Double-crested cormorant (Phalacrocorax auritus) Red-breasted merganser (Mergus serrator) 

Gadwall (Anas strepera) Red-winged blackbird (Agelalus phoeniceus) 

Great blue heron (Ardea herodias) Ring-billed gull (Larus delawarensis) 

Great egret (Ardea alba) Sandhill crane (Grus canadensis) 

Greater scaup (Aythya marila) Sedge wren (Cistothorus platensis) 

Greater white-fronted goose (Anser albifrons) Solitary sandpiper (Tringa solitaria) 

Greater yellowlegs (Tringa melanoleuca) Sora (Porzana carolina) 

Green heron (Butorides virescens) Spotted sandpiper (Actitis macularius) 

Green-winged teal (Anas crecca) Swamp sparrow (Melospiza georgiana) 

Herring gull (Larus argentatus) White ibis (Endocimus albus) 

Hooded merganser (Lophodytes cycyllatus) Whooping crane (Grus americana) 

King rail (Rallus elegans) Wilson’s snipe (Gallinago delicata) 

Least sandpiper (Calidris minutilla) Wood duck (Aix sponsa) 

Lesser yellowlegs (Tringa flavipes) Yellow-crowned night heron (Nyctanassa

violacea) 

Other species 

American crow (Corvus brachyhynchos) Blue-headed (solitary) vireo (Vireo solitarius) 

Acadian flycatcher (Empidonax virescens) Blue-winged warbler (Vermivora pinus) 

American goldfinch (Carduelis tristis) Bobolink (Dolichonyx oryzivorus) 

American kestrel (Falco sparverius) Brewster’swarbler (Vermivora leucobronchialis) 

American redstart (Setophaga ruticilla) Broad-winged hawk (Buteo platypterus) 

American robin (Turdus migratorius) Brown creeper (Certhia americana) 

American wigeon (Anas americana) Brown thrasher (Toxostoma rufum) 

Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus)

SPOC Brown-headed cowbird (Molothrus ater) 

Baltimore (northern) oriole (Icterus galbula) Brown-headed nuthatch (Sitta pusilla) 

Barn swallow (Hirunndo rustica) Canada warbler (Wilsonia canadensis) 

Barred owl (Strix varia) Cape May warbler (Dendroica tigrina) 

Bay-breasted warbler (Dendroica castanea) Carolina chickadee (Poecile carolinensis) 

Black and white warbler (Minotita varia) Carolina wren (Thryothorus ludovicianus) 
55 

Table 18. (Continued). 

Black vulture (Coragyos atratus) Cedar waxwing (Bombycilla cedrorum) 

Black-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus erthropthalmus) Cerulean warbler (Dendroica cerulea)

SPOC

Blackburnian warbler (Dendroica fusca) Chestnut-sided warbler (Dendroica pensylvanica) 

Blackpoll warbler (Dendroica striata) Chimney swift (Chaetura pelagica) 

Black-throatedblue warbler (Dendroica caerulescens) Chipping sparrow (Spizelia passerina) 

Black-throated green warbler (Dendroica virens) Cliff swallow (Petrochelidon pyrrhonota) 

Blue grosbeak (Passerina caerulea) Common grackle (Quiscalus quiscula) 

Blue jay (Cyanocitta cristata) Connecticut warbler (Oporornis agilis) 

Blue-gray gnatcatcher (Poliopotilia caerulea) Cooper’s hawk (Accipter cooperii) 

Dark-eyed junco (Junco hyemalis) Ovenbird (Seiurus aurocapilla) 

Downy woodpecker (Picoides pubescens) Palm warbler (Dendroica palmarum) 

Eastern bluebird ( Sialia sialis) Peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus)

a SPOC

Eastern kingbird (Tyrannus tyrannus) Philadelphia vireo (Vireo philadelphicus) 

Eastern meadowlark (Sturnella magna) Pileated woodpecker (Dryocopus pileatus) 

Eastern palm warbler (Dendroica palmarum 

hypochrysea) 

Pine siskin (Carduelis pinus) 

Eastern phoebe (Savornis phoebe) Pine warbler (Dendroica pinus) 

Eastern screech owl (Otus asio) Prairie warbler (Dendroica discolor) 

Eastern (roufous-sided) towhee (Pipilo 

erythrophthalmus)

Prothonotary warbler (Protonotaria citrea) 

Red-bellied woodpecker (Melanerpes carolinus) Purple finch (Carpodacus purpureus) 

Eastern wood pewee (Contopus virens) Purple martin (Progne subis) 

Eurasian collared dove (Streptopelia decaocto)** Red-breasted nuthatch (Sitta canadensis)

European starling (Sturnus vulgaris)** Red-eyed vireo (Vireo olivaceus) 

Field sparrow (Spizella pusilla) Red-headed woodpecker (Melanerpes 

erthrocephalus) 

Fish crow (Corvus ossifragus) Red-shouldered hawk (Buteo lineatus) 

Fox sparrow (Passerella iliaca) Red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis) 

Golden-crowned kinglet (Regulus satrapa) Rock dove (Columba livia)

Golden-winged warbler (Vermivora chrysoptera) SPOC Rose-breasted grosbeak (Pheucticus 

ludovicianus) 

Grasshopper sparrow (Ammodramus savannarum) Ruby-crowned kinglet (Regulus calendula) 

Gray catbird (Dumetella carolinensis) Ruby-throated hummingbird (Archilochus 

columbris) 

Gray-cheeked thrush (Catharus minimus) Rusty blackbird (Euphagus carolinus) 

Great crested flycatcher (Myiarchus crinitus) Savannah sparrow (Passerculus sandwichensis) 

Great horned owl (Bubo virginianus) Scarlet tanager (Piranga olivacea) 

Hairy woodpecker (Picoides villosus) Sharp-shinned hawk (Accipter striatus) 

Henslow’s sparrow (Ammodramus henslowii) SPOC Song sparrow (Melospiza melodia) 

Hermit thrush (Catharus gullatus) Summer tanager (Piranga rubra) 

Hooded warbler (Wilsonia citrina) Swainson thrush (Catharus ustulatus) 

House finch (Carpodacus mexicanus) Tennessee warbler (Vermivora peregrina) 

House (English) sparrow (Passer domesticus)** Tree swallow (Tachycineta bicolor) 

House wren (Troglodytes aedon) Tufted titmouse (Baeolophus bicolor) 

Indigo bunting (Passerina cyanea) Turkey vulture (Cathartes aura) 

Kentucky warbler (Oporornis formosus) Veery (Catharus fuscescens) 
56 

Table 18. (Continued). 

Killdeer (Charadrius vociferus) Vesper sparrow (Pooecetes gramineus) 

Lawrence’s warbler (Vermivora lawrencii) Western palm warbler (Dendroica palmarum) 

Le Conte’s sparrow (Ammodramus leconteii) White crowned sparrow (Zonotrichia leucophrys) 

Lincoln’s sparrow (Melospiza lincolnii) White-breasted nuthatch (Sitta carolinensis) 

Magnolia warbler (Dendroica magnolia) White-eyed vireo (Vireo griseus) 

Mourning dove (Zenaida macroura) White-throated sparrow (Zonotrichia albicollis) 

Mourning warbler (Oporornis philadelphia) Whooping crane (Grus americana)a 

Nashville warbler (Vermivora ruficapilla) Wild turkey (Meleagris gallopavo) 

Northern cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis) Wilson’s warbler (Wilsonia pusilla) 

Northern flicker (Colaptes auratus) Winter wren (Troglodytes troglodytes) 

Northern harrier (Circus cyaneus) Wood thrush (Hylocichla mustelina) 

Northern mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos) Worm-eating warbler (Helmitheros vermivorum) 

Northern parula (Parula americana) Yellow warbler (Dendroica petechia) 

Northern rough-winged swallow (Stelgidopteryx 

serripennis)

Yellow-bellied flycatcher (Empidonax flaviventris) 

Olive-sided flycatcher (Contopus cooperi) Yellow-bellied sapsucker (Syphrapicus varius) 

Orange-crowned warbler (Vermivora celata) Yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus) 

Orchard oriole (Icterus spurius) Yellow-breasted chat (Icteria virens) 

Table 19. Mammalian species listed as occurring at the park (* ≡ probably present; ** ≡ exotic introduced 

species; ne ≡ native encroaching; NPS 2008c; and supporting information from USGS 2008). 

Species associated with aquatic habitats 

American beaver (Castor canadensis) Muskrat (muskbeaver) (Ondatra zibethicus) 

American mink (Mustela vison) Northern river otter (Lontra canadensis) 

Marsh rice rat (Oryzomys palustris) Swamp rabbit (Sylvilagus aquaticus)* 

Other species 

Big brown bat (Eptesicus fuscus) Hoary bat (Lasiurus cinereus) 

Black rat (Rattus rattus)** House mouse (Mus musculus)** 

Bobcat (Lynx rufus) Least shrew (Cryptotis parva) 

Common muskrat (Ondatra zibethicus) Long-tailed weasel (Mustela frenata)* 

Common gray fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus) Meadow jumping mouse (Zapus hudsonius) 

Cotton mouse (Peromyscus gossypinus) ne Meadow vole (Microtus pennsylvanicus) 

Coyote (Canis latrans) Northern raccoon (Procyon lotor) 

Eastern chipmunk (Tamias striatus) Northern short-tailed shrew (Blarina brevicauda) 

Eastern cottontail (Sylvilagus floridanus) Norway rat (Rattus norvegicus)** 

Eastern fox squirrel (Sciurus niger)

 ne Oldfield mouse (Peromyscus polionotus) ne

Eastern gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis) Red fox (Vulpes vulpes) 

Eastern harvest mouse (Reithrodontomys humulis) Southeastern shrew (Sorex longirostris)

Eastern mole (topos) (Scalopus aquaticus) Southern flying squirrel (Glaucomys volans)* 

Eastern red bat (Lasiurus borealis) Striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis) 

Eastern spotted skunk (Spilogale putorius) ne Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginiana) 

Feral cat (Felis catus)** White-footed mouse (Peromyscus leucopus) 

Feral dog (Canis familiaris)** White-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) 

Golden mouse (Ochrotomys nuttalli)* Woodchuck (Marmota monax) ne

Hispid cotton rat (Sigmodon hispidus) Woodland vole (Microtus pinetorum) 
57 

Species of Concern as Endangered, Threatened, or Rare 

A total of 18 SPOCs may still occur in CHATT; the status of 4 of these, mussel species, is most 

uncertain. One wetland macrophyte SPOC, the Florida anise or Florida anisetree, occurs in the 

park and has been listed as endangerd by GA DNR (2008b,c). The state’s “endangered” status 

refers to a species that is in danger of extinction throughout all or part of its range. Eight 

terrestrial SPOCs in the park area include bay star-vine (Schisandra glabra - threatened), 

Georgia aster (Symphyotrichum georgianum - threatened), goldenseal (Hydrastic canadensis - 

endangered), mountain witch-alder (Fothergilla major - threatened), piedmont barren-strawberry 

or barren strawberry (Waldsteinia lobata - rare), pink ladyslipper (Cypripedium acaule – 

unusual), and Ozark bunchflower or false hellebore (Veratrum woodii - rare) (GA DNR 

2008b,c). The state’s “threatened” status refers to a species that likely will become endangered 

in the foreseeable future throughout all or parts of its range. “Rare” status refers to a species that 

may not be endangered or threatened but should be protected because of scarcity (GA DNR 

2008b,c). “Unusual” state status refers to a species that merits special consideration because of 

concerns about commercial exploitation. One of these species, Georgia aster, is also federally 

listed as “C”, a candidate species that is under review for federal listing as endangered or 

threatened (GA DNR 2008b,c). 

Plate 12. Evidence of beaver damage to vegetation in park wetlands. This photo (by E. Morris) was taken 

at a 47-acre wetland restoration project at the Johnson Ferry Park Unit.

Four mussel species that previously were in the park area (present status presumed extirpated; 

not detected for more than a decade – see above), listed by both GA DNR and U.S. FWS as 

endangered, are the fat threeridge (Amblema neislerii), shinyrayed pocketbook, Gulf 

moccasinshell, and oval pigtoe (GA DNR 2008c). These species have been federally listed as 

endangered since 1997. In addition, the purple bankclimber (Elliptio chipolaensis), previously 
58 

known from the park area (present status unknown), is state and federally listed as threatened. 

All five species prefer main-channel or large-stream sandy habitats with slow to moderate 

currents. Two of these species, the Gulf moccasinshell and shinyrayed pocketbook, have been 

reported as apparently extirpated from the mainstem Chattahoochee River in downstream park 

segments around Morgan Falls Dam (GeoSyntec Consultants 2006). 

Two species of fish, the bluestripe shiner and the highscale shiner, are state-listed as rare SPOCs 

(GA DNR 2008c). The bluestripe shiner is a SPOC as a result of its decreased populations after 

extensive hybridization with the exotic invasive red shiner following its introduction (DeVivo 

1995, 1996). The distribution and habitat preferences of the highscale shiner are not well 

understood (DeVivo 1996). It has been described as absent from the park area (DeVivo 1996, 

NPS 2008c) although common above Lake Lanier (DeVivo 1996); however, unverified USGS 

data described it as present in tributaries of the greater Atlanta metropolitan area (DeVivo 1996). 

In addition, GeoSyntec Consultants (2006) described it as possibly occurring in Big Creek within 

the park area. 

At present, no SPOC hepatofauna or mammals are listed as present or probably present in the 

park. Among other vertebrates, five bird species, the bald eagle, cerulean warbler, goldenwinged warbler, Henslow’s sparrow, and the peregrine falcon, are listed as SPOCs by GA DNR 

(2008c). The golden-winged warbler is state-listed as endangered; the bald eagle is state- and 

federally listed as threatened; and the Cerulean warbler, Henslow’s sparrow, and peregrine 

falcon are state-listed as rare. Four of the five species are included in the NPS (2008x) list of 

species that have been seen in the park; the fifth, a probable siting of a peregrine falcon, was 

reported near Morgan Falls dam in 2005 (GeoSyntec Consultants 2006). 

Exotic and Invasive Species 

A total of 114 exotic invasive terrestrial plant species inhabit the park, including 8 species 

described as abundant and 12 species described as common (Table 20). In addition, many exotic 

landscaping trees occur in the park (Kunkle and Vana-Miller 2000). Exotic insects include the 

forest day mosquito (Aedes albopictus), the red imported fire and (Solenopsis invicta), and the 

southern pine beetle (Dentroctonus frontalis), which has adversely affected pine vegetation (NPS 

1989). The red imported fire ant (Solenopsis invicta) is an invasive species from South America, 

introduced to the U.S. in the 1930s (Porter and Savignano 1990). This aggressive species has 

largely displaced the two fire ant species native to the Southeast, Solenopsis geminata and

Solenopsis exloni (Porter and Savignano 1990). The southern pine beetle also has adversely 

affected terrestrial ecosystems in the park (NPS1989), and is considered the most destructive 

forest insect pest in the southeastern U.S. (Clarke 1995). Three non-native bird species 

(European starling, Eurasian collared dove, house sparrow) and five non-native mammal species 

(black rat, feral cat, feral dog, house mouse, Norway rat) inhabit the park (Tables 18 and 19). 

Aquatic ecosystems are especially vulnerable to biological invasions (Cook 1993). A total of 33 

non-native invasive aquatic and wetland species occur in park waters, including 9 that have been 

evaluated as abundant (aquatic species Brazilian elodea, and wetland species Chinese 

honeysuckle, Chinese privet, Japanese stiltgrass, and leatherleaf clematis) or common (wetland 

species aneilima, annual blue grass, broadleaf plantain, and hairy jointgrass) (NPS 2008x, Tables 

10 and 20). These species appear to be displacing native flora (Hay and Parker 2003). Eight 

additional species, including the aquatic species parrotfeather, are of unknown status. 
59 

Table 20. Abundant and common invasive exotic higher plant species in the park (NPS 2008c). See 

Table 10 for species names of wetland and aquatic taxa. 

Wetland and Aquatic Species 

Brazilian elodea Abundant 

Chinese honeysuckle Abundant 

Chinese privet Abundant 

Japanese stiltgrass Abundant 

Leatherleaf clematis Abundant 

Aneilima Common 

Annual blue grass Common 

Broadleaf plantain Common 

Hairy jointgrass Common 

Alligatorweed Unknown 

Bitter dock Unknown 

Common morning glory Unknown 

Dallas grass Unknown 

Fiddle dock Unknown 

Mexican morningglory Unknown 

Parrotfeather Unknown 

Smallflower buttercup Unknown 

Common sheep sorrel Uncommon or Rare 

Common water hyacinth Uncommon or Rare 

Crowsfoot grass Uncommon or Rare 

Curly dock Uncommon or Rare 

Lady’s thumb Uncommon or Rare 

Meadow buttercup Uncommon or Rare 

Ricefield flatsedge Uncommon or Rare 

Vasey grass Uncommon or Rare 

Terrestrial Species 

Autumn olive (oleaster) (Elaeagnus umbellata) Abundant 

Bird’s nest (Queen Anne’s lace, wild carrot (Daucus carota) Abundant 

Blowball (common dandelion, faceclock) (Taraxacum officinale) Abundant 

Chickweed (common or nodding chickweed) (Stellaria media) Abundant 

Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense) Abundant 

Cocksfoot (orchardgrass) (Dactylis glomerata) Abundant 

Ox-eye daisy (Leucanthemum vulgare) Abundant 

Sticky chickweed (Cerastium glomeratum) Abundant 

Common henbit (giraffehead, henbit deadnettle) (Lamium amplexicaule) Common 

Common lambsquarters (white goosefoot) (Chenopodium album) Common 

Creeping charlie (gill-over-the-ground, ground ivy) (Glechoma hederacea) Common 

Dutch clover (ladino or white clover) (Trifolium repens) Common 

English ivy (Hedera helix) Common 

Hairy jointgrass (small carpgrass) (Arthraxon hispidus) Common 

India mockstrawberry (Indian strawberry) (Duchesnea indica) Common 

Kudzu (Pueraria lobata) Common 

Mimosa (mimosa tree, powderpuff tree, silktree) (Albizia julibrissin) Common 

Multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora) Common 

Thorny elaeagnus (thorny olive) (Elaeagnus pungens) Common 

Wild garlic (Allium vineale) Common 
60 

In Hay and Parkers’ (2003) recent survey, Brazilian elodea was described as common throughout 

the Chattahoochee River in the park. Wart-removing herb was common along the river banks 

and wetland areas at Cochran Shoals, Gumby Swamp, and Johnson Ferry, and formed 

impenetrable emergent mats by the end of the growing season. Parrotfeather occurred 

sporadically in the Chattahoochee River at Jones Bridge and Island Ford, but were more locally 

persistent in the Gumby Swamp wetland of the park. Large floating mats of it were identified as 

a concern because of displacement of native flora and provision of mosquito breeding habitat. A 

single population of alligatorweed was found at the Palisades (west) unit near the end of the 

second summer of the survey, suggesting that this species may be a recent addition to the 

Chattahoochee River. 

On an encouraging note, exotic invasive wetland and aquatic species in the park are consumed 

by various native herbivores that effectively may help to provide biotic resistance to the plant 

invasions. For example, native generalist crayfish populations were found to prefer the invasive 

exotic plant aneilima (Asian spiderwort) over native freshwater plants by a 3:1 ratio when plants 

were paired by taxonomic relatedness (Parker and Hay 2005). In other experiments, beaver 

herbivory reduced the abundance of invasive aquatic parrotfeather by nearly 90% (Parker et al. 

2007b). 

One mollusc species (Asian clam) and five fish (Asian swamp eel or rice eel, channel catfish, 

common carp, red shiner, shoal bass – Tables 11 and 12, Plate 13) are invasive exotic species in 

park waters. The Asian clam was first noted in Georgia waters in 1971, and had become 

widespread by the early 1990s (Sickel 1973, Counts 1991). It can form dense populations of 

thousands of individuals per square meter of stream or river bottom, and typically outcompetes 

native species to dominate the benthic fauna (Sickel 1986). 

Plate 13. Three invasive exotic species in the park, including (left to right) the Asian clam (photo by N. 

Burkhead - at http://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/FactSheet.asp?speciesID=92, used with permission); the 

Asian swamp eel (photo by P. Shafland, FL Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission – at 

http://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/FactSheet.asp?speciesID=974, used with permission); and the red shiner 

(photo by G.W. Sneegas – at http://gwsphotos.com/images/141.jpg, used with permission).

Two examples of exotic invasive fish species are included here. The red shiner is a habitat 

generalist native to the south and central plains west of the Mississippi River (Nico and Fuller 

2008). It was first noted in the Chattahoochee River basin in 1978, and likely was introduced by 

bait bucket releases (Couch et al. 1995, Nico and Fuller 2008). Its initial colonization typically 

is followed by rapid reproduction, dispersal, and aggressive colonization. Its hybridization with 

fish such as the bluestripe shiner has greatly reduced bluestripe shiner populations, resulting in 

the status of that species as a SPOC. Red shiners adversely affect the distribution and abundance 

of native fishes. Since its introduction to the Chattahoochee, it has become the dominant or co-
61 

dominant species in water quality-impaired streams of the greater metropolitan Atlanta area, 

including several tributaries of the park. 

As a second example, the Asian swamp eel was first detected in the park near Roswell, GA by 

NPS personnel during 1991, probably as an aquarium release (Straight et al. 2006). The species 

most similar to the eels found in the park is Monopterus albus, although recent genetic research 

has indicated that the park specimens may be a separate species. This large (3 ft. or more in 

length) nocturnal generalist, voracious predator is air-breathing, can tolerate low-oxygen conditions in waterways, has a wide temperature tolerance and, in general, is highly adaptable 

(Straight et al. 2006). Declines in native fish species have been attributed to it in other areas, and 

it appar-ently eliminated native sunfishes in the pond at the Chattahoochee Nature Center where 

it first was detected (USGS 2008a). Because it is a generalist predator, it is a potential threat to 

native fishes, frogs, and aquatic invertebrates (USGS 2008a). Its present status in the park is 

unknown. 

In addition to these exotic/invasive fish, whereas brown trout are native to the Chattahoochee, 

some of the non-native rainbow trout that have been stocked in the river have moved to 

warmwater tributaries to spawn, and their offspring now thrive year-round. Thus, technically 

they would be defined as invasive (Long et al. 2008; P. Thompson, GA DNR, pers. comm., 

2008). Ironically, the documented spawning and young-of-year survival of this invasive species 

is an indicator of high watershed integrity (Long et al. 2008). 

Although the climate generally is too cold to allow alligators (American alligator, Alligator 

mississippiensis) to overwinter, occasionally they are illicitly released into the Chattahoochee 

River near Atlanta. For example, in June 2007 an alligator (length ~6-8 feet) was captured by 

GA DNR near an overpass of the Atlanta beltline (I-285; 14 June 2007, AP Press). It was found 

and removed at the Powers Island unit of the park near a popular trail and canoe launch area. 

Assessment of Park Water and Air Resources 

The park’s drinking water is supplied from the Chattahoochee River by County water treatment 

plants. Park Units with the bathroom sign in Figures 3-6 have running water, and most are on 

sewer lines except for Island Ford and Jones Bridge (including CREEC) which are on septic 

tanks (C. Hughes, NPS, pers. comm., July 2008). 

Surface Water Quality 

The park is located in the Upper Middle Chattahoochee River sub-basin, designated by GA DNR 

as HUC 03130002. Locations for sampling stations near or within the park, discussed in this 

section, were obtained from the U.S. EPA STORET, a repository for water quality, biological, 

and physical data, and from Cobb, Gwinnett, Forsyth, and Fulton Counties. The USGS NWIS 

database was also used. GA DNR-EPD maintains a water quality database as well, but it will not 

be available until 2009 (Mr. Michael Basmajian, GA DNR-EPD Watershed Protection Branch – 

Ambient Monitoring Unit, pers. comm., 2008). Latitudes and longitudes for the sites were 

imported from Microsoft Excel into ArcMap and converted to GIS point files. Figures 17-20

repeat the illustration of water quality and stream gaging stations in the park area that were 

shown in Figures 3-6. The two sets of figures were designed so that readers can assess sampling 

station locations with respect to roads and other land use features (Figures 3-6) and, for the latter 

sections of this Report, also with respect to major sources of water pollution (Figures 17-20). 
62 

For Figures 17-20, the data layers were obtained from the GA DNR EPD Watershed Protection 

Branch. Data sets for landfills, land application sites, and 303d-listed streams were downloaded 

from GA DNR (2000a,b). 

Surface water quality has been degraded in the Chattahoochee and various of its tributaries in the 

park area for at least the past two decades, based on historic records (Kunkle and Vana-Miller 

2000). A general management plan, development concept plan, and environmental assessment 

were completed for the park in 1989 (NPS 1989). About a decade later, in recognition of the fact 

that intense surrounding or encroaching urbanization threatens the natural resources of the park, 

a Water Resources Management Plan was developed (Kunkle and Vana-Miller 2000). This 

section continues the theme of this Report, namely, to provide an update over the past ~decade 

since that plan was developed. 

Over the past ~decade, 39 stations have been monitored for water quality in the park area, but 

close scrutiny reveals serious gaps in water quality information. Of the 22 stations (56% of the 

total) that are presently in operation, 5 have data that are collected only quarterly or less 

frequently, and 10 of the remaining 17 stations have data on some parameters only quarterly or 

less frequently (Table 21; Appendices 2 and 3). Only 1 station, Forsyth County JSF-1 (Park Unit 

Orrs Ferry – James Creek), has biweekly to monthly data collection on all parameters sampled; 4 

other stations have biweekly data on a few parameters versus monthly, bimonthly, quarterly, or 

less frequent data on the other parameters sampled. Seven stations have ongoing data collection 

in the mainstem Chattahoochee River within the park area (Table 21). The 7 stations are 

operated by Fulton County (2 stations), potable WTPs (3 stations), and the NPS (2 stations with 

2 parameters sampled at each – the BacteriALERT program, in partnership with other agencies; 

see below). Surprisingly, no stations are presently operated by GA DNR-EPD in or near the 

park, although it should be noted that GA DNR is a member of the BacteriALERT partnership 

program (2 stations as mentioned). Four USGS stations are in operation, 3 of which are jointly 

operated with counties. Thus, water quality stations presently are operated almost entirely by the 

counties (14 stations + 3 shared between counties and the USGS, or 77% of the stations), potable 

WTPs (~14%), and the NPS (~9%). Parameters are sampled bimonthly or less frequently at 

many of the stations (Table 21, Appendices 2 and 3), which would miss most pollution spills and 

would also be insufficient to characterize nonpoint pollution contributed by most storm events. 

The data from these various sources were checked by each individual entry for quality control/ 

assurance, a process that revealed numerous errors in data entry that were detected, checked with 

the source agency, and corrected before their inclusion in this Report and its appendices. These 

available data indicate pervasive water quality degradation from excessive fecal coliform 

bacteria, suspended solids, nutrients (inorganic nitrogen as nitrate+nitrite and/or ammonium, and 

total phosphorus), and various toxic metals (Tables 22 and 23, Figures 21-24, Appendices 2-4). 

This is the case despite the fact that the Chattahoochee River in the park area is heavily depended 

upon as a potable water supply for the greater metropolitan Atlanta area, and also heavily used 

for fishing, canoeing and other recreational activities (Kunkle and Vana-Miller 2000, ARC 

2007). 
63 

Figure 17. Map showing Section I (northernmost area) of the park, indicating Park Units, water quality 

sampling sites, and stream gaging sites in relation to pollution sources including land application sites 

(LASs), landfills, NPDES point source sites, and town boundaries reflecting urban/suburban runoff 

(created by the NCSU CAAE). Streams officially recognized as water quality-impaired (303d-listed) are 

also indicated. Numbered sites are as follows: 

 1. W. Cumming Quarry 10. Buford - Tuggle Greer Rd. landfill 

 2. Buford Trout Hatchery Outfall No. 1 11. Buford landfill 

 3. Buford Trout Hatchery Outfall No. 2 12. Buford - Peachtree Ind. Blvd. landfill 

 4. Windermere Urban Reuse LAS 13. Buford - Southside WPCP 

 5. Miller/Trammel Trammel Rd. landfill 14. Old Atlanta Club LAS 

 6. Sugar Hill LAS 15. Martin Marietta Aggr. - Forsyth Quarry 

 7. Sugar Hill Appling Rd. PH1 landfill 16. Forsyth County - Dick Creek Water Reclamation 

 8. BFI Richland Creek landfill Facility (wastewater treatment plant) 

 9. Buford - Westside WPCP 17. Capital Resources LAS 
64 

Figure 18. Map showing Section II of the park and indicating Park Units, water quality sampling sites, and 

stream gaging sites in relation to pollution sources including land application sites, landfills, NPDES point 

source sites, and town boundaries reflecting urban/suburban runoff (created by the NCSU CAAE). 

Streams officially recognized as water quality-impaired (303d-listed) are also indicated. Numbered sites 

are as follows: 

 1. Suwanee landfill # 944 3. Lafarge Building Materials 

 2. Fulton County - Cauley Creek WRF 4. Gwinnett Landfill Inc. 
65 

Figure 19. Map showing Section III of the park and indicating Park Units, water quality sampling sites, 

and stream gaging sites in relation to pollution sources including land application sites, landfills, NPDES 

point source sites, and town boundaries reflecting urban/suburban runoff (created by the NCSU CAAE). 

Streams officially recognized as water quality-impaired (303d-listed) are also indicated. Numbered sites 

are as follows: 

 1. Strickland - Kimball Br. Rd. landfill 11. Fulton Co. - Johns Cr. WRF 

 2. Lafarge Building Materials 12. Oxbo - landfill # 916 

 3. Worley - Nesbitt Ferry Rd. landfill # 923 13. Roswell First Baptist Ch. - landfill # 915 

 4. Hamil - Brumbelow Rd. landfill 14. Town & Country Motors - landfill # 919 

 5. Nesbitt Ferry Rd. - landfill # 921 15. GA. Hwy 120 - landfill # 917 

 6. Rivermont – Holcombe Br. Rd. landfill # 924 16. Hagerman - landfill # 918 

 7. Holcombe Br. Baptist Church - landfill # 922 17. Azalea - Willeo Rd. - landfill # 920 

 8. Gwinnett Co. - Crooked Cr./North WPCP 18. Fulton Co. - Big Cr. WPCP 

 9. Glaze landfill (# 869) 19. Georgia Power Co., Morgan Falls 

 10. Laurelwood - landfill #868 20. Fulton Co. - Morgan Falls landfill 
66 

Figure 20. Map showing Section IV (southernmost area) of the park and indicating Park Units, water 

quality sampling sites, and stream gaging sites in relation to pollution sources including land application 

sites, landfills, NPDES point source sites, and town boundaries reflecting urban/suburban runoff (created 

by the NCSU CAAE). Streams officially recognized as water quality-impaired (303d-listed) are also 

indicated. The six NPDES sites are all for USAF Lockheed Plant No. 6, which has five discharge points 

that are all designated under one permit identification number (see below). Note that the area defined by 

the dashed lines in the upper right includes stations that are within Section III (see Figure 19). 

The detailed analysis summarized in Table 23 revealed that excessive nutrient concentrations 

commonly occur throughout the park area, especially for nitrate but also for ammonium and total 

phosphorus. These findings support a study by USGS NWQAP in 2002- 2004 which reported 

that urban development in the Atlanta was associated with increased concentrations of nitrogen 

in stream waters (Sprague et al. 2007). All four Sections of the park have stations with excessive 

TSS concentrations as well. The data suggest that BOD5 and TP may be lower in Section IV 

(Park Units 14-16, tributaries of the Chattahoochee River segment from Cochran Shoals to Paces 

Mill) than in Sections I-III (Table 23, Figures 21-24). Excessive concentrations of toxic metals, 

most commonly cadmium, copper, lead, and zinc (also aluminum in Little Nancy Creek, 
67 

affecting the Paces Mill Park Unit), also characterize all four Sections of the park, with 

unacceptable water quality conditions from toxic metals being especially frequent in park 

Sections I-III. 

Figure 21. Percentage of samples that exceeded recommended values (fecal coliforms and E. coli > 400 

mpn/100 mL – U.S. EPA 2003; BOD5 > 3 mg/L – Mallin 2006; nutrients NOx and TP > 100 μg/L – Mallin 

2000; TSS > 25 mg/L – U.S. EPA 2000) for six water quality parameters, by section, over ~the past 

decade. Numbers over bars ≡ total sample number in each section by parameter. Note that county data 

for BOD5 often were available as “< 5 mg/L”. Following statistical protocols (Ellis and Gilbert 1980, 

Zirschky et al. 1985), half of that value (2.5 mg/L) was used as the median for many sites, which would 

correspond to “zero” data that exceeded the recommended value for acceptable water quality. Thus, this 

approach is believed to be conservative; it is uncertain as to the number of actual exceedances that 

occurred for BOD5. 
68 

Figure 22. Median total phosphorus (TP), nitrate+nitrite (NOx), and biochemical oxygen demand (fiveday, BOD5), by station and Section, in the park during the past ~decade. While TP concentra-tions 

indicated mesotrophic conditions, or moderate nutrient enrichment, nearly all median nitrate 

concentrations are above 100 μg/L, which can stimulate nuisance algal blooms in riverine ecosystems 

(Mallin 2000, Wetzel 2001). Nitrate is an important nutrient that stimulates algal growth in freshwaters, 

secondary to or along with phosphorus (Wetzel 2001), and in many systems algal blooms are best 

controlled by co-management of N and P (e.g. Touchette et al. 2007). In all Sections, median BOD5 was 

less than the level that indicates degraded conditions (3 mg/L; Mallin 2006), although median levels are 

approaching 2.5 mg/L at some stations throughout the park. 
69 

Figure 23. Median total suspended solids (TSS), fecal coliform densities (FC), and number of FC 

violations of the state standards, by station and Section, in the park during the past ~decade. From the 

available data, 4 stations among Sections I-III had median TSS concentrations above the recommended 

value of 25 mg/L for acceptable water quality (U.S. EPA 2000), and 5 stations among representing all 

Sections had median FC densities above the recommended value of 400 mpn/100 mL for acceptable 

water quality (U.S. EPA 2003). As the lower panel illustrates, all four Sections had stations with FC 

violations in 10% or more of the samples, with the most numerous violations in Section 1. 
70 

Table 21. Synopsis of water quality sampling in the park area over the past decade (note that the 

sampling duration and frequency vary depending upon the parameter). Stations are presented by 

Section, from north to south. The most recent date indicates the period for which data were available (see 

Appendix 3 for details). Stations in blue in operation as of late 2008 – early 2009. 

Station – Location Duration Sampling Frequency (Approximate) 

Source Water – Lake Lanier 

GA DNR 12040001 Oct 01 - Aug/Oct 04 bimonthly or every 6 months 

Section I [5 stations; 4 in operation] 

1) USGS 2334480 / Gwinnett County 

Bowmans Island - Richland Creek 

Jul 01 - Jul/Aug 08 

 

Jul 01 - Feb/Jun/Aug 08 

Jul 01 - Aug 03 

Jul 04 - Oct 07 

Jul/Aug 04 - Aug 08 

Aug 07 

Apr 08 

weekly 4 times per year (fecal coliforms 

[FC]) 

monthly or every ~6 weeks 

monthly 

monthly 

monthly or every ~6 weeks 

1 date 

1 date 

2) USGS 02334500 

Bowmans Island / Orrs Ferry - 

Chattahoochee R., Buford 

Jan - Dec 00 biweekly, monthly, or on 2 dates 

3) Forsyth County JSFOrrs Ferry - James Creek 

May 05 - Aug 08 biweekly, monthly, or bimonthly 

4) USGS 2334578 / Gwinnett County 

Settles Bridge - Level Creek 

Jul 01 - Apr 08 weekly 4 times per year (FC); monthly or 

quarterly, or on 1-2 dates 

5) Forsyth County DKF-1 

Settles Bridge - Dick Creek 

May 05 - Aug 08 biweekly, monthly, or bimonthly 

Section II [10 stations; 6 in operation] 

1) GA DNR 12048001 

McGinnis Ferry - Chattahoochee River 

Mar 01 - Jun/Aug/ 

Dec 04 

weekly, biweekly, or monthly 

2) Forsyth County CHF-1 

McGinnis Ferry - Chattahoochee River 

May 05 - Aug 08 biweekly, monthly, or bimonthly 

3) USGS 02334885 / Gwinnett Co. 

Suwanee Creek - Suwanee Creek 

Jul 01 - Aug 08 

Jan 98 - Aug 08 

Jan 98 - Aug 00 

Mar 98 - Aug 03 

Jun 99 - Apr 00 

Jun 99 - Mar 01 

Jan - Oct/Dec 00 

Jan 00 - Aug 08 

Jan 01 - Oct 02 

Jan 01 - Feb 03 

Jan 01 - Oct 07 

Nov 02 - Sep 03 

Nov 02 - Mar 08 

weekly 4 times per year (FC) 

monthly, bimonthly, or 1 date 

monthly 

monthly 

quarterly 

monthly 

monthly 

monthly to bimonthly 

monthly 

twice per year 

monthly 

monthly 

quarterly 
71 

Table 21. (Continued). 

Station – Location Duration Sampling Frequency (Approximate) 

4) GA DNR 12050301 - Suwanee 

Creek 

Jan 99 - Feb/Aug/Sep 03 

Jan 99 - Aug 00 

Jan - Dec 00 

Feb - Oct 02 

Nov 02 - Sep 03 

biweekly, monthly, or bimonthly 

twice per day, or bimonthly 

monthly 

biweekly, monthly, or bimonthly 

bimonthly 

5) Fulton County CC-2 

Abbotts Bridge - Chattahoochee 

River 

Apr 07 - Apr 08 

Mar - Nov 07 

1-4 times per year 

weekly or quarterly (fecal bacteria) 

6) USGS 02335000 

Chattahoochee R., Norcross 

Oct 00 - Nov 07 every 3 days, biweekly, or 1-3 dates 

7) BacteriALERT Site 1 

Medlock Bridge - Chattahoochee 

River 

Oct 00 - Nov 08 daily (Escherichia coli; turbidity data also 

taken*) 

8) Atlanta-Fulton County WTP 

Chattahoochee R., Norcross 

(data not included in this Report) 

May 1994 - present hourly, daily, monthly, or yearly 

9) Fulton County JO-1 

Jones Bridge - Johns Creek 

Sep 06/Apr 07 - Apr 08 

Jun 06 - Feb 08 

1-4 times per year 

weekly or quarterly (bacteria) 

10) GA DNR 12054401 

Jones Bridge - Johns Creek 

Jan - Dec 00 biweekly, monthly, or 2 dates 

Section III [14 stations; 7 in operation] 

1) GA DNR 12055001 

Chattahoochee River, Holcomb 

Bridge 

Mar 01/Jan 02 - Jun/ 

Aug/Dec 04 

weekly, biweekly, or monthly 

2)DeKalb Co. - Scott Candler WTP 

Holcomb Bridge - Chattahoochee 

R. 

Jan 05 - Jul 2006 

Aug 2006 - Mar 09 

daily (fecal coliform bacteria) 

daily (Escherichia coli) 

3) GA DNR 12055361 - Crooked 

Creek 

Jan/Feb 99 - May/Sep 03 

Jan/Jun 99 - Sep 00 

Jan - Dec 00 

Feb - Oct 02 

2 dates in 00 

biweekly, monthly or bimonthly 

monthly 

monthly 

monthly 

twice 

4) USGS 02335350 / Gwinnett County 

Crooked Creek 

Jul 01 - Aug 08 

Jul 01/Apr 02 - Feb/Apr/ 

Aug 08 

weekly 4 times per year (FC) 

biweekly, monthly, bimonthly 

1-2 dates 

5) Fulton County CK-1 

Island Ford - Ball Mill Creek 

Sep 06/Apr 07 - Apr 08 

Jun 06 - Nov 07 

1-4 times per year 

weekly or quarterly (fecal bacteria) 

6) City of Alpharetta – Big Creek Jun 99 - Feb 02 

Jun 99 - Feb 09 

Jun 00 - Aug 06 

Feb 02 - Feb 09 

Feb 02, Apr 05 

3 dates 

weekly to 4-month intervals 

1-3 times per year 

1-8 times per year 

2 dates 

7) GA DNR 12060001 Mar 01 - Jun/Dec 04 

Jan 02 - Jun 04 

monthly 

bimonthly 

8) Cobb County WL-4 

Gold Branch - Willeo Creek 

Feb 98 - Mar 08 

Nov 07, Mar 08 

quarterly 

1x per year 
72 

Table 21. (Continued). 

Station – Location Duration Sampling Frequency (Approximate) 

9) GA DNR 12064001 

Gold Branch - Willeo Creek 

Jun 99 - Dec 00 

Jan - Dec 00 

27 Apr, 6 Nov 00 

biweekly or monthly 

monthly 

2 dates 

10) Fulton County MA-1 

Johnson Ferry - March (Marsh) 

Creek 

Sep 06/Apr 07 - Apr 08 

Jun 06 - Nov 07 

1-4 times per year 

weekly or quarterly (fecal bacteria) 

11) GA DNR 12070001 

Chattahoochee R., Johnson Ferry 

just upstream from intake of Cobb 

Co. potable WTP (Marietta Water 

Authority [MWA] - J.E. Quarles 

WTP) 

Mar 01 - Dec 04 

Nov 01 - Dec 03 

Jan 02 - Jun 04 

monthly 

monthly 

biweekly to monthly 

12) Marietta Water Authority, Cobb 

County James Quarles WTP raw 

water intake - Chattahoochee River 

Sep 07 - Mar 09 daily (Escherichia coli) 

13) BacteriALERT Site 2 Oct 01 - Nov 02 daily (Escherichia coli; turbidity data also 

taken*) 

14) USGS 02335830 

Chattahoochee R., Johnson Ferry 

Mar 99 - Apr 00 

Jan - Dec 00 

27 Apr, 6 Nov 00 

Oct 01 - Nov 02 

5-day intervals to biweekly 

monthly 

2 dates 

weekly 

Section IV [10 stations; 5 in operation] 

1) USGS 02335870 - Sope Creek Apr 98 

 Apr 98 - Jul 99 

 Apr 98 - Sep 01 

 Apr 98 - Oct 02 

 Apr 98 - Sep 03 

 Apr 98 - Aug/Sep/Oct 08 

 Jun 99 - Apr 00 

 Jun 99 - Mar 02 

 Nov 01 - Oct 02 

 Nov 02 - Jul 03 

1 date 

bimonthly 

monthly 

monthly or once per year 

monthly 

monthly 

bimonthly 

6-month intervals 

quarterly 

bimonthly 

2) Cobb County SP-6 

Cochran Shoals - Sope Creek 

 Mar 98 - Oct 08/Jan 08 

 Jan 08 

1-4 times per year 

1 date 

3) GA DNR 12072101 

Cochran Shoals - Sope Creek 

 Jan - Dec 00 

 27 Apr, 6 Nov 00 

biweekly or monthly 

2 dates 

4) Fulton County LI-2 

Palisades - Long Island Creek 

 Sep 06/Apr 07 - Apr 08 

 Jun 06 - Nov 07 

1-4 times per year 

weekly or quarterly (fecal bacteria) 

5) GA DNR 12073201 

Palisades - Long Island Creek 

 Jan - Dec 00 

 27 Apr, 6 Nov 00 

biweekly or monthly 

2 dates 

6) Cobb County RT5 

Palisades - Rottenwood Creek 

 Jan 98 - Aug/Dec 07 1-4 times per year 
73 

Table 21. (Continued). 

Station – Location Duration Sampling Frequency (Approximate) 

7) GA DNR 12073901 

Palisades - White Water Creek 

 Jan 99 - Sep 03 

 Jan - Dec 00 

 Jan 00 - May 02 

 Jan 00 - Sep 03 

 Feb 02 - Sep 03 

 00 - 03 

monthly or bimonthly 

monthly 

bimonthly 

monthly or bimonthly 

quarterly 

1x or 2x per year 

8) BacteriALERT Site 3 

Medlock Bridge - Chattahoochee 

River 

 Oct 00 - Nov 08 daily (Escherichia coli; turbidity data also 

taken*) 

9) Cobb County NA-1 

Paces Mill - Little Nancy Creek 

 Jun 00 - Sep 07/Mar 08 

 Jan 08, Mar 08 

2-5 times per year 

2 dates 

10) Cobb County NA-2 

Paces Mill - Little Nancy Creek Jun 02 - Sep 07/Mar 08 

 Jan 08, Mar 08 

2-5 times per year 

2 dates 

Table 22. Water quality guidelines (reference condition, 25th percentile) for some potentially toxic metals 

(total concentration, in μg/L) in freshwater streams of SECN parks, including CHATT (U.S. EPA 2000, 

2002, 2003; Byrne 2004). CMC ≡ the criterion maximum concen-tration; CCC ≡ the criterion continuous 

concen-tration, within a pH range of 6.5-9. 

Parameter CMC CCC 

Aluminum 750 81 

Cadmium 2 0.25 

Chromium III 570 74 

Chromium IV 16 11 

Copper 13 9 

Lead 65 2.5 

Mercury 1.4 0.77 

Nickel 470 52 

Zinc 120 87 
74 

Table 23. Summary of the percentage of the total samples per station with unacceptable water quality 

conditions, and the parameter(s) involved (n.m. ≡ not measured; n.a. ≡ not available; n, 2 ≡ based upon 

only 2 dates; diss’d. Cu ≡ not measured except for dissolved copper); * ≡ 17% of SRP samples were also 

unacceptably high). Unacceptable water quality conditions are as follows: DO and pH were in violation of 

the state standards (GA DNR 2008d). For fecal coliforms (FC) or Escherichia coli (EC), blue+bold = 

geometric means (gms) available (> 4 samples [FC] or > 5 [EC] within a 30-day period) and the data were 

in violation of the state standards (FC) or the U.S. EPA standards (EC). For other fecal coliform, gms 

could not be calculated because of insufficient sampling. These data suggest degraded conditions: The 

first percentage is for samples that exceeded the state standard values considered for gms [FC] or for 

samples that exceeded the U.S. EPA standard value considered for gms [EC]. The second percentage 

for both FC and EC indicates samples that exceeded the U.S. EPA’s (2003) recommendation of < 400 

mpn/100 mL (see pp. 94-95 of this Report). ** ≡ two different methods were used (see Appendix 2). 

Nutrients exceeded concentrations known to support noxious algal blooms (Mallin 2000). BOD5 

exceeded 3 mg/L (Mallin 2006). Other parameters exceeded values recommended for acceptable water 

quality (U.S. EPA 2000) including TSS (> 25 mg/L maximum) and heavy metals (Al, Cu, Hg, Pb, Ni, Zn – 

see Table 22). Note that toxic metals are total values unless otherwise indicated; ? or > ≡ the percentage 

of samples with excessive values could not be determined from the data reported. The U.S. EPA (2002) 

recommends that pH is maintained within the range 6.5-9, but this report follows Georgia regulations (pH 

> 6.0). Grey-shaded stations in Park Sections I, II and III indicate USGS stations (“a” and “b”) sampled by 

Gwinnett County for fecal coliform bacteria. See Appendices 2-4 for detailed information. 

Location/ 

Station # 

Nutrients Fecal 

NH4 Bacteria + NO3

-

 TP BOD5 TSS Turb Toxic Metals Other 

Lake Lanier --- 64% --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 

Chattahoochee River 

I 1a n.m. n.m. n.m. n.m. 39% 

33% or 23% 

n.m. n.m. n.m. --- 

1b 48% 100% 46% 48% 60% or 53% 53% 50% Cd ? 

Cu > 40% 

Pb > 41% 

Zn 27% 

pH 3% 

 2 42% 83% --- --- 6% or 0% --- --- --- --- 

 3 n.m. 36% 36% n.m. 33% 

35% or 32% 

43% 23% Dissolved Cu 2% DO 1% 

E. coli 20%

4a n.m. n.m. n.m. n.m. 43%

43% or 32% 

n.m. n.m. n.m. --- 

4b 51% 97% 34% 42% 61% or 54% 51% 50% Cd? 

Cu > 12% 

Pb > 23% 

Zn 11% 

pH 8% 

 5 n.m. 98% 33% n.m. 44% 

45% or 37% 

40% 25% n.m. excecpt 

dissolved Cu 

E. coli 20%

II* 1 9% 96% --- --- 8% 6% --- n.m. E. coli 5% 

 2 n.m. n.m. 88% 7% 0% 

12% or 12% 

17 

% 

9% n.m. except 

dissolved Cu 

DO 1% 

3a n.m. n.m. n.m. n.m. 67% 

33% or 23% 

n.m. n.m. n.m. --- 

3b 92% 99% 31% 38% 39% 

55% or 50%** 

56 or 38%** 

46% 38% Cd ? 

Cu 17% 

Pb 52% 

Zn 4% 

DO, pH 1% 

E. coli 75% 
75 

Table 23. (Continued). 

Location/ 

Station # 

Nutrients Fecal 

NH4 Bacteria + NO3

-

 TP BOD5 TSS Turb Toxic Metals Other 

 4 92% 100% 33%* 35% n.m. 63% 39% Cd 100% 

Diss’d Cd 100% 

Cu 18% 

Pb 51% 

Zn 3% 

pH 1% 

 5 --- 20% --- --- 50% --- n.m. Cu 25% E. coli 29% 

 6 n.m. n.m. n.m. n.m. 11% or 11% n.m. n.m. n.m. E. coli 19% 

E. coli 11% 

 7 n.m. n.m. n.m. n.m. n.m. n.m. n.a. n.m. E. coli 17%

E. coli 10% 

 9 --- 50% --- --- 50% 

35% or 35% 

--- n.m. --- E. coli 30% 

 10 --- 92% --- --- n.m. --- --- Cd 100% (n,2) --- 

III 1 9% 98% --- --- 18% 

21% or 13% 

13% 2% n.m. E. coli 8% 

 2 --- --- --- --- 16% --- --- --- E. coli 3% 

 3 25% 100% 35% 35% n.m. 61% 31% Cd 100% 

Diss’d Cd 100% 

Cu 28% 

Pb 53% 

Zn 23% 

DO 5% 

pH 2% 

4a n.m. n.m. n.m. n.m. 75% 

35% or 29% 

n.m. n.m. n.m. --- 

4b 25% 99% 34% 41% 44% 

65% or 52%** 

50% or 38%** 

46% 34% Cd ? 

Cr ? 

Cu > 29% 

Pb > 40% 

Zn 22% 

pH 1% 

DO 1% 

 5 --- 100% --- --- 25% 

45% or 35% 

n.m. n.m. --- E. coli 35% 

 6 34% 67% 49% 

(SRP) 

n.m. 100% 

34% or 34% 

n.m. 5% Cu 53% DO 8% 

Fecal strep 

30% or 

28% 

 7 2% 100% 58% --- 45% 

44% or 40% 

13% 4% Cu 3% 

Pb 3% 

DO 9% 

E coli 32% 

 8 --- 97% 17% --- 34% or 29% --- --- Cd ? 

Cu 3% 

Pb 3% 

DO 9% 

 9 25% 92% --- 8% n.m. --- --- Cd 100% DO 8% 

 10 --- 100% --- --- 75% 

55% or 45% 

--- --- Cd ? E coli 45% 

 11 13% 100% 2% 2% 27% 

25% or 21% 

24% 2% n.m. E. coli 11% 

 12 n.m. n.m. n.m. n.m. n.m. n.m. n.m. n.m. E. coli 7% 

 13 n.m. n.m. n.m. n.m. n.m. n.m. n.a. n.m. E. coli 21% 

E. coli 11% 

 14 58% 100% 25% --- 21% 

18% or 22%** 

13% or 13%** 

18% 18% Cd ? pH 1% 

E coli 20% 

or 10%** 

IV 1 n.m. n.m. 7% n.m. 50% or 50% n.m. --- n.m. DO, pH 1% 

E. coli 60% 

or 40%** 
76 

Table 23. (Continued). 

Location / 

Station # 

Nutrients Fecal 

NH4 Bacteria + NO3

-

 TP BOD5 TSS Turb Toxic Metals Other 

 2 --- 100% 12% --- 27% or 21% --- --- Pb 3% --- 

 3 36% 91% 9% 9% n.m. 9% 8% Cd 100% --- 

 4 --- 100% --- --- 50% 

45% or 45% 

--- N.M. Cd ? E. coli 45% 

or 50% 

 5 25% 100% --- 8% n.m. --- n.m. Cd 100% DO 5% 

 6 --- 100% 17% --- 40% or 34% 3% --- Cd ? 

Cu 3% 

Pb 9% 

--- 

 7 25% 100% 6% 8% n.m. 31% 8% Cd 100% --- 

 8 n.m. n.m. n.m. n.m. n.m. n.m. n.a. n.m. E. coli 55% 

E. coli 21% 

 9 n.m. 100% 3% --- 15% or 6% --- 3% Cd ? 

Al 100% 

--- 

 10 n.m. 100% 13% --- 17% or 13% --- --- Cd ? 

Al 50% 

--- 

* Data from station 8 in Sectin II, the Atlanta-Fulton WTP, are not included as explained in Report text 

Figure 24. Number and percentage of months that fecal coliform samples violated state standards, 

considering data for which geometric means (gms) could be calculated. 

Four potable water treatment plants (WTPs) that are located within ~two miles’ distance or less 

from the park segments were also checked for water quality databases. In park Section II, the 

Atlanta-Fulton County WTP (Figures 4 and 18; same location as USGS 02335000; data, mostly 

redundant with other stations, are not included in this Report) has an online monitoring station at 

its intake on the Chattahoochee River and measures temperature, alkalinity, pH, turbidity, and 

conductivity daily. Data are also collected monthly at this WTP for total coliform bacteria and 

total organic carbon (TOC), and yearly for nitrate and volatile organic compounds (VOCs). The 

other three WTPs are in Section III: The Water Production Laboratory of DeKalb County’s 

Scott Candler Filter Plant (Figures 5 and 19), at the same location as station GA DNR 12055001, 

analyzes Chattahoochee River water daily Monday through Friday for turbidity, threshold odor, 
77 

total coliforms, and Escherichia coli (Table 23, Appendices 2 and 3). Cryptosporidium and 

Giardia are analyzed monthly. The data for fecal bacteria from the Scott Candler Filter Plant are 

included in this Report. Previously, fecal coliform bacteria were analyzed (3 January 2005 - 31 

July 2006), and then this WTP switched to analysis of Escherichia coli rather than fecal 

coliforms (1 August 2006 - present). Fecal coliform densities ranged from < 1 to 11,000 

mpn/100 mL; E. coli densities ranged from < 1 to 7,940 mpn/100 mL (Table 23, Appendices 2 

and 3). The River Station Operator also checks turbidity at 3-hour intervals, but the records are 

not electronic; and temperature is recorded hourly 24/7. 

During 2001-2004, the City of Roswell’s Big Creek WTP (same station as GA DNR 12060001; 

Table 23, Appendix 2) sampled daily for alkalinity, hardness, pH, turbidity, iron, and manganese. 

Fecal coliform bacteria were sampled ~biweekly, TOC was sampled monthly, and once per year 

samples were taken for EPA inorganics and synthetic organics. Finally, the James E. Quarles 

WTP (Marietta Water Authority [MWA], Cobb County – Figures 5 and 19) does not sample for 

total fecal coliforms, but provided data for Escherichia coli that have been taken daily since 

September 2007 (Table 21, Figure 25, Appendix 2). Of the 159 days sampled through March 

2009, the data ranged from below reporting limits to 7,820 mpn/100 mL. A total of 6% of the 

samples (32 dates) exceeded 200 mpn/100 mL (May - October) or 1,000 mpn/100 mL 

(November - April). There were no violations of the geometric mean for each month, but it 

should be noted that total fecal coliform concentrations would be expected to have been higher 

than the data for this species alone. 

Figure 25. Data for Escherichia coli sampled daily by the MWA - Cobb County WTP, from September 

2007 - March 2009. 

Special mention is included here of a program called BacteriALERT. An estimated 30% of the 

~3.5 million park visitors annually engage in various recreational activities in Chattahoochee 

River segments (USGS 2008b). Because of NPS concerns about potential adverse health effects 

from chronically high levels of fecal coliform bacteria in the river, the ongoing BacteriALERT 

network was initiated in park waters during fall 2000. BacteriALERT is a partnership between 

State and Federal agencies and non-government organizations, including the NPS, the USGS, 

GA DNR-EPD, the Upper Chattahoochee RiverKeeper, the Georgia Conservancy, and the Trust 

for Public Lands. 

BacteriALERT provides information to the general public about exceedances of the U.S. EPA 

criteria for fecal coliform levels to protect health safety (USGS 2008b). Two stations (formerly 

three) are sampled daily (Figures 4, 6, 18, and 20); in the area covered, the designated uses for 
78 

the Chattahoochee River are drinking water and recreation. The program provides data on total 

coliform bacteria, the fecal coliform bacterial species Escherichia coli, and turbidity (Figure 26). 

Figure 26. Relationship between turbidity and fecal bacteria in the Chattahoochee River near the 

Holcomb Bridge Park Unit. A strong positive relationship was also found between stream flow and 

turbidity, and between turbidity and both total coliform bacterial densities and Escherichia coli bacterial 

densities. Available at: http://ga2.er.usgs.gov/bacteria/sites.cfm. 

Data summaries are posted on a freely accessible website within four hours of sample collection. 

The data also are interpreted for relationships between coliform bacteria and meteorological, 

hydrological, and other water quality conditions such as stream flow. BacteriALERT has the 

most high-frequency dataset available on fecal coliform bacteria in the park area (Figure 27). 

Figure 27. Total coliforms and Escherichia coli fecal bacteria at Medlock Bridge and Paces Bridge from 

the Chattahoochee River in the park (Park Sections II and IV, respectively). Data obtained from the 

BacteriALERT program (USGS 1998). 

NPS (2004a) also described a now-dated study by the USGS in 1994-1995 of water-column 

concentrations of pesticides, herbicides, and radon in Sope Creek, Big Creek, and Suwanee 

Creek. Concentrations of insecticides (e.g. the highly toxic organophosphate pesticides diazinon 
79 

and chlorpyrifos) in surface waters were reported to often exceed the criteria to protect aquatic 

life, pesticides had contaminated groundwater as well (see below). Between 2002 and 2004, the 

USGS NAWQA Program evaluated the effects of urbanization on pesticide concentrations along 

an urban land cover gradient during low-flow conditions in the Atlanta metropolitan area. Total 

insecticide and herbicide concentrations generally increased significantly with increasing urban 

land cover (Sprague and Nowell 2008). 

Historically there has been improvement in DO sags, which used to affect more park streams, 

especially below Buford Dam (see review by Kunkle and Vana-Miller 2000). Few violations of 

the state standard (5.0 mg/L daily average; minimum at any time, 4.0 mg/L; GA DNR 2008d) 

have been detected in the past ~decade (Table 23, Appendices 2 and 3). Temperature alterations, 

described in the 1990s, continue to be a problem; elevated temperatures in the river and tributary 

streams have been caused by sediment loading, loss of shade trees along stream banks, and 

wastewater discharges (NPS 2004a). In addition, during December – January the release of 

warmer, vertically mixed water from Lake Lanier causes mid-winter warming (NPS 2004a). As 

mentioned, aberrantly cold temperatures also occur in the river below Lake Lanier because of 

releases of cold hypolimnetic water for power generation (NPS 2004a). 

In 2000 the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint River basin was listed in the top 10 most 

endangered American rivers in 1999 (American Rivers; see http://www.americanrivers.org /site/ 

Page Server? pagename=AR7_MER). The present analysis of the available data over the last 

decade indicates that park waters continue to show ongoing degradation. Hay and Parkers’ 

(2003) summary, for example, of the present status of surface waters flowing into and through 

the park holds true five years later: “Because the land surrounding the [Chattahoochee] river is 

heavily urbanized ...extreme turbidity during rains is common, and raw sewage is often dumped 

directly into the river.” 

Drinking Water 

As of 2000 it was estimated that on average, ca. 446 mgd were withdrawn from the 

Chattahoochee River in the area for drinking water and industrial use (Kunkle and Vana-Miller 

2000). Twelve other GA DNR-permitted users (golf courses, athletic clubs, small industries) 

each were withdrawing more than 10,000 gallons per day. The Chattahoochee River and Lake 

Lanier presently supply about 75% and 10%, respectively, of the water supply used by nearly 

four million people in the Atlanta greater metropolitan area, including the park (Kunkle and 

Vana-Miller 2000, GA DAA 2005). Seven potable water treatment plants presently are in 

operation in the area, with two other serving Atlanta that intake water above Peachtree Creek 

(Plate 14, Table 24). Considerable expansion of capacity is planned (Table 24). 

After severe droughts in the 1980s, Atlanta proposed to increase withdrawals from the 

Chattahoochee River, but this proposal was contested largely over concern for the potential 

downstream effects on the Apalachicola Bay estuary which supports more than 90% of Florida’s 

oyster production (USACE 1998). Conflicts over water use led to a water compact in 1997 

between Georgia and Florida, also involving the Flint River and Alabama (Richter et al. 2003). 

The Tri-State Water Allocation program is managed by the Apalachicola-Chatta-hoochee-Flint 

River Commission, which was charged with developing a Water Allocation Formula for the 

Chattahoochee River including the park. The objective is to provide an equitable basis for 

sharing water supplies among the states. In 1991 the commission instituted a comprehensive 
80 

study of the Alabama-Coosa-Tallapoosa/ Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint Rivers to make 

water use demand estimates through 2050, estimate the extent to which supplies can meet the 

projected demands, and develop water supply management alternatives. The USACE (1998) 

prepared a NEPA programmatic environmental impact statement for the effort. The three states 

approved Interstate Compacts in 1997 (NPS 2004a), but ongoing conflicts remain (see p. 108 of 

this Report). 

Plate 14. The Cobb-Marietta Water Authority’s water treatment plant at Johnson Ferry on the 

Chattahoochee River. Photo by E. Morris, summer 2008. 

Drinking water quality standards are set by both federal and state legislation; the main federal 

law is the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), and the primary state law is the Georgia Safe 

Drinking Water Act (GSDWA). The SDWA directs the U.S. EPA to ensure that public water 

systems meet minimum standards for specific contaminants, and the U.S. EPA has granted the 

GA DNR-EPD the primary responsibility for enforcing the standards. Nevertheless, GA DAA 

(2005, p.9) reported a disturbing situation regarding protection of drinking water resources and 

other waters: “...The state’s water-related activities are conducted by multiple programs within 

multiple agencies... [and] are subject to multiple laws and regulations enacted at different times 

for different purposes.... With few exceptions, information is not maintained to evaluate the 

effectiveness of the state’s water-related activities....[GA DNR] EPD compiles some statistical 

data regarding water quality and the quality of lakes, rivers and marshes, and prepares some 

technical analyses of the condition of the state’s groundwater and its aquifers.... However, none 
81 

of these data are used to establish specific performance objectives.... The Governor’s Budget 

Report for fiscal year 2005, for example, does not contain any performance measures for 

evaluating EPD’s effectiveness in protecting the state’s water resources.” 

Table 24. Potable WTPs in the existing park area and just upstream and downstream from it, and 

planned increased capacity by 2030. Modified from Kunkle and Vana-Miller (2000), ARC (2003), 

CH2MHill (2003), and MNGWPD (2008). 

Water Treatment Plant 

Permitted 

Monthly Average 

(mgd) 

Increased 

Capacity 

(2030) 

Forsyth and Cumming WTPs (Lake Lanier) 

HUC 031300010807 

33 104 

Gwinnett County (Lake Lanier/Shoal Creek/Lakeside 

HUC 031300010809 

140 155 

Buford (Lake Lanier) (GA1350000) 2 4 

DeKalb County (Chattahoochee River) 

HUC 031300010907 

140 175 

Roswell (Big Creek) 

HUC 031300011001 

2 5 

Cobb County (CCMWA Quarles WTP) 

HUC 031300011101 

73 86 

Atlanta/Fulton County WTP 

HUC 031300010905 

104 155 

Atlanta (intake above Peachtree Creek – Hemphill and 

Chattahoochee WTPs) 

HUC 031300011106 

127 201 

Total 619 885 

This general lack of enforcing water quality standards (GA DNR 2008d) or recommended 

guidelines for acceptable water quality (U.S. EPA 2000, 2002) has led to the following 

description of Georgia’s waters, including the Chattahoochee River, by the GA DAA (2005): 

“In 2000, 60% of all waters assessed in the state did not fully meet the quality expectations for 

their designated uses; aging or lack of water infrastructure in growth areas causes industrial and 

municipal source pollution; and nonpoint source pollution is widespread and needs to be 

controlled by reducing nutrient loads, minimizing erosion and sedimentation, managing 

stormwater, and using BMPs and other measures to meet federal court order requirements for 

total maximum daily loads for streams and lakes across the state.” 

Groundwater Quality 

Groundwater quality standards are set by federal (Safe Drinking Water Act, Clean Water Act) 

and state legislation (Safe Drinking Water Act, Water Quality Control Act, Water Well 

Standards Act (GA DAA 2005). The GA DNR-EPD’s Regulatory Support Program is the main 

regulatory and technical assistance entity that evaluates and attempts to protect groundwater 

quality (GA DAA 2005). Limited data on groundwater quality in the park area are available from 

a ~decade- old study by the USGS of the Willeo, Sope, and Rottenwood Creek basins (Frick 

1997). 
82 

A previously mentioned study by the USGS in 1994-1995 assessed three tributaries in the park, 

and detected pesticides in more than half of the well and spring samples that were collected (NPS 

2004a). The termiticide and agricultural pesticide dieldrin was most commonly detected, and 

occurred in 30% of the wells and 47% of the springs. Tetrachloroethene, used in drycleaning, 

was found in one well and one spring; and radon exceeded the U.S. EPA standard of 300 

picocuries per liter in 87% of the groundwater samples. 

Sources of Pollutants 

Urbanization in the greater metropolitan Atlanta area contributes a wide array of pollution 

sources (e.g. Plate 15). GA DNR’s (1998a) Chattahoochee River Basin Management Plan noted 

concerns about six sources of water quality degradation, still relevant, including (i) fecal 

coliforms; (ii) heavy metals; (iii) elevated water temperatures from urbanization, loss of riparian 

trees, urban runoff and wastewater discharges; (iv) low dissolved oxygen below the Buford Dam 

because of hypolimnetic releases from Lake Lanier; (v) erosion and sedimenta-tion from urban 

runoff, road construction, and other development; and (vi) toxic substance accumulations in fish 

tissues (mercury, PCBs, chlordanes). Mikalsen (1989) reviewed water quality conditions in 

urban areas of Georgia, and identified additional concerns, still relevant, such as (vii) excessive 

nutrients such as nitrate and phosphorus that promote algal blooms; (viii) elevated nutrients and 

elevated temperatures that interact to favor low-oxygen-tolerant species while reducing or 

eliminating populations of “clean water”, higher-oxygen-requiring species such as stoneflies; and 

(ix) increased inputs of other toxic substances such as pesticides, herbicides, and petrochemicals 

in urban runoff. Clearly, a decade later this situation has not appreciably changed, despite 

development of TMDLs for many of the surface waters upstream from and within the park. 

Suspended sediment loading is contributed from erosion because of land disturbance, and from 

urban runoff. High turbidity and sediment loads are common in park surface waters, especially 

after storm events (NPS 2004a) (Plates 16 and 17). The sediment particles adsorb pesticides, 

herbicides, some toxic metals, oil and grease, and nutrients such as ammonium and phosphorus; 

they also increase stream temperatures and help to depress dissolved oxygen levels (Paul and 

Meyer 2001, NPS 2004a). 

Fecal coliforms are high in many streams because of urban runoff (including NOx from car 

exhausts, pet wastes etc.), other domestic animal wastes, sewer leaks and overflows, leaking 

septic systems, illicit waste discharges, and other nonpoint sources, and wastes from wildlife and 

waterfowl (GA DNR 2003a, 2008a; NPS 2004a). Fecal coliform bacterial contamination often 

co-occurs with nutrient pollution and, as mentioned, is contributed by nonpoint runoff (carrying 

NOx from car exhausts, pet wastes etc.); sewer line overflows, leaks and breaks; raw sewage 

spills; septic system leaks; and wastes from domestic as well as wild animals. Fecal coliform 

bacteria can sometimes indicate the presence of other microbial pathogens that cause human 

disease (Mallin et al. 2001). 
83 

Plate 15. Examples of an urban garbage portfolio in park streams, a common site because of the 

surrounding urbanization: Willeo Creek at Gold Branch (upper panel), Powers Island at Cochran Shoals 

(middle panel), and Long Island Creek at Palisades (lower panel). Photos by E. Morris, 2008.
84 

Plate 16. Streams degraded by sediment loading at Bowmans Island. Photos by E. Morris, 2008.

Plate 17. Suwanee Creek: (a) Upstream from its confluence with the Chattahoochee River, showing 

degradation from high sediment loading; (b) at its confluence with the mainstem Chattahoochee River 

(Suwanee Creek is in the foreground). Photos by E. Morris, 2008.

Excessive nutrients and organic materials that contribute to BOD come from sewage (treated as 

well as untreated) added by point sources but also added by nonpoint sources such as septic tanks 

and sludge land application fields (e.g. Plate 18), lawns, domestic animal wastes, and exposed 

soil at construction sites (National Research Council 2000). 
85 

Plate 18. Spray field for municipal sludge near McGinnis Ferry; the park and the Chattahoochee River are 

in the background behind the trees. Photo by E. Morris, 2008.

As mentioned, heavy metals, especially cadmium, copper, lead, and/or zinc, were described as 

excessive in some streams in urbanizing areas. In the mid-1990s, toxic metals were the second 

most common pollutants of concern in park surface waters after fecal coliforms (Kunkle and 

Vana-Miller 2000), and the status of heavy metals contamination has not improved based upon 

the most recent available data (Table 23, Appendices 2 and 3). Metals pollution has been 

attributed to urban runoff, and from bottom water and sediments of Lake Lanier via releases 

from Buford Dam, especially during December - February after vertical mixing (NPS 2004a). 

There is no natural source for PCBs; rather, PCB contamination is of industrial origin (GA DNR 

2003b). Chlordane is also assumed to be of industrial origin (Nomeir and Hajjar 1987), whereas 

mercury pollution is being contributed by urban sources and airshed sources outside the 

Chattahoochee watershed (Baeyens et al. 1996, Qumerais et al. 1999). 

The MNGWPD (2003) assessed water resources in the area during the early 2000s and reported 

that the “amount of stormwater runoff and treated wastewater flowing into [the area’s] 

waterways has increased dramatically in the last 30 years. More than 1,000 miles of the District’s 

rivers, streams, and lakes do not meet state water quality standards. The primary cause is 

polluted stormwater runoff. The health of the region’s large lakes, including Lake Lanier..., is 

threatened by stormwater runoff” from urbanization (GA DAA 2005). The District also reported 

that the wastewater service needs of the area are projected to double by 2030, requiring wastewater treatment capacity to expand substantially during that timeframe. The general malaise and 

multiple effects of urbanization continue to degrade the park’s aquatic natural resources. 

Point Sources 

NPDES permit information and any compliance actions were accessed from the U.S. EPA 

Enforcement and Compliance History Online (ECHO) Permit Compliance System, or from the 
86 

modernized ECHO Integrated Compliance Information System (http://www.epaecho.gov/echo/compliance_report _water.html). Point sources affecting the park include sewage 

treatment plants and various industrial discharges. As of 2000 it was estimated that ~50 mgd of 

treated water were discharged to the Chattahoochee River within the park by eight wastewater 

treatment plants within four counties (Kunkle and Vana-Miller 2000). Since that time, some of 

the treated sewage volume has been rerouted for discharge into the lower water column of Lake 

Lanier. In 2006, for example, Gwinnett County received permission to discharge up to 40 mgd 

of treated sewage into the reservoir (Shelton 2006), and the reservoir receives point source 

pollution from 47 other sewage treatment plants (Perry 2005). While this situation clearly affects 

the source water of the Chattahoochee River for the park, at present 14 point sources (with 

discharge at least 0.25 mgd) add more than 70 mgd to receiving surface waters in the park area 

(Figures 17-20, Plate 19). Of these, about half have been out of compliance with their permits 

during one or more dates in the past three years (Table 25). Section I has the most point sources 

(7), followed by Sections III and IV (5 each), with Section II having only two point sources 

(Figures 17-20). 

Sewerage infrastructure contributes to pollution of park waters as well. The NPS has mapped an 

extensive network of sewer pipelines located within the park and surrounding area (NPS 2004a). 

Many of the pipelines transect the park under easement agreements with local governments 

(Plate 20), and some of them have leaked or broken. In 1999, for example, GA DNR EPD 

records indicated that ca. 26 million gallons of raw or partially treated sewage spilled into the 

Chattahoochee River and its tributaries within the park (NPS 2004a). The park maintains a 

database of sewage spills. 

Accidental spills of fuels and numerous other chemicals commonly occur on bridges that cross 

over the Chattahoochee River or on other roads within the park. Park staff maintain a database 

that tracks the types and quantities of materials released (NPS 2004a). It is anticipated that more 

of the point sources in the area, over time, will adopt advanced treatment (CH2MHill 2003). 

Nonpoint Sources 

Impervious surface cover alters the hydrology and geomorphology of streams, leading to 

predictable changes in stream habitat that adversely affect beneficial aquatic flora and fauna 

(Paul and Meyer 2001). Urban runoff, along with municipal and industrial point source 

discharges, increase loadings of nutrients, metals, pesticides, other toxic contaminants, and 

pathogenic microorganisms to receiving waters. It has been estimated that every day in Atlanta, 

54 acres of tree canopy are lost and replaced with 28 acres of impervious surface (NARSAL 

2006). In the CHATT watershed, every day 22 acres of trees are replaced with 17 acres of 

impervious surface (Reynolds and Hardy 2007). As mentioned, the impervious surface in the 

CHATT watershed nearly doubled between 1991 and 2005 (Reynolds Hardy 2007). The largest 

increase in impervious surface has occurred in Big Creek, Johns Creek, and Suwanee Creek in 

Forsyth and Gwinnett Counties, which are among the fastest growing in the nation (Reynolds 

and Hardy 2007). The pollutants carried by urban runoff stress the health and depress the 

survival of beneficial aquatic life, and the increased runoff in turn increases flooding, streambed 

scouring, sedimentation, bank erosion, and accumulation of litter and other solid wastes (NPS 

2004a) (e.g. Plates 15-17). The overall net effect is degraded water quality (Table 26), depressed 

biodiversity, and loss of beneficial aquatic life (Olsen 1984, Hadley and Ongley 1989). 
87 

Plate 19. Treated sewage bubbling into the Chattahoochee River from an outfall diffuser area in the 

Holcomb Bridge Park Unit at the Horseshoe Bend Country Club. Note responding algal growth (top 

panel) and a canoeist in the background (center panel). Photos by E. Morris, 2008.
88 

Plate 20. Examples of the numerous sewer pipes that traverse or empty into park waters, including (a) 

Gold Branch – Willeo Creek, (b) Suwanee Creek – turbid Suwanee Creek at its confluence with the 

Chattahoochee River, (c-e) Vickery Creek, and (f) Cochran Shoals showing straight-pipe runoff into the 

Chattahoochee River. Photos by E. Morris, 2008.

Land disturbance during construction in ongoing, increasing urban development of the 

Chattahoochee basin is a major source of suspended solids. Under the NPDES construction 

stormwater permit system, GA DNR-EPD is charged with regulating discharges of stormwater 

from construction sites greater than five acres (GA DNR 2008e,f). The situation, however, is 

“death by a thousand cuts”; enforcement is difficult because of budgetary constraints, and many 

construction sites are less than five acres in area. Thus it is estimated that about 80% of all water 

pollution in the area comes from nonpoint sources in developed and developing urban areas 

(NPS 2004a). High turbidity and sediment loads are common in park waters, especially after 

storm events (NPS 2004a) (Plates 15 and 16). The sediment particles adsorb pesticides, 

herbicides, some toxic metals, oil and grease, and nutrients such as ammonium and phosphorus; 

they also increase stream temperatures and help to depress dissolved oxygen levels (Paul and 

Meyer 2001, NPS 2004a). 
89 

Table 25. The 14 point source contributors that discharge 0.25 mgd or more in the park area above 

Peachtree Creek, and violations of permit compliance during the past ~three years (Jul 05 - Jun 08). 

These sources collectively discharge more than 70 mgd. Permit information is from GA DNR (2008f); 

compliance information is from U.S. EPA (2008).* 

Park Section Point Source NPDES 

Permit 

Receiving 

Stream Violation 

Section I 

Blue Circle Aggregates Cumming Quarry GA0046850 Daves Creek ---- 

Buford Trout Hatchery Outfalls 1, 2 GA0026174 Chatt. River ---- 

Buford - Westside WPCP (0.25 mgd) GA0023175 Richland Creek ---- 

Buford - Southside WPCP (2 mgd) GA0023167 Suwanee Creek pH, fecal coliforms, ammonia, 

TP, TSS 

Martin Marietta Aggregates - Forsyth 

Quarry 

GA0047562 Dick Creek ---- 

Forsyth County - Dick Creek WRF 

(0.76 mgd) 

GA0038563 Dick Creek ---- 

Section II 

Fulton County - Cauley Creek WRF 

(0.5 mgd) 

GA0038440 Cauley Creek Turbidity 

Lafarge Building Materials GA0048640 Chatt. River trib. ---- 

Section III 

Georgia Power Co., Morgan Falls GA0001511 Chatt R. ---- 

Fulton County - Big Creek WPCP (24 

mgd) 

GA0024333 BOD5, COD, 5-day flow in 

conduit or through WPCP, 

COD, TSS 

Gwinnett County - 

Crooked Creek/ North WPCP 

(36mgd) 

GA0026433 Lake Lanier Chlorine, total residual 

ammonia, total COD, BOD5 

Fulton County - Johns Creek WRF 

(7 mgd) 

GA0030686 Johns Creek pH, TP 

Lafarge Building Materials GA0047601 Big Creek trib. 

Foe Killer Creek 

Section IV 

USAF Lockheed Plant No. 6 (5 discharge 

points - 2 mgd each, total of 10 mgd) 

GA0001198 Rottenwood Creek 

Poor House Creek 

pH, aluminum, BOD5, TOC 

* Note that two major sources of sewage described by Kunkle and Vana-Miller (2000), the Cobb County Sutton 

WPCP (GA0026140, RM 300.5; permitted discharge, 40 mgd) and the Clayton WPCP in Atlanta (GA0021482, 

RM 300.4; permitted discharge, 100 mgd), discharge to the Chattahoochee River below the present park. 

There are three superfund sites near the park (Table 27). In addition, there are four municipal 

sludge land application sites in the park, all near Section I (Table 28, Figure 17). Six landfills 

occur near Section I as well, four of which ceased operations more than a decade ago but likely 

are still contributing nonpoint pollution (Table 28). Near Park Sections II and III are two 

landfills and 15 landfills, respectively (Figures 18 and 19), and two of the landfills near Section 

III ceased operations in the late 1980s (Table 28). There are no land application sites or landfills 

near Park Section IV. 
90 

Table 26. Mean concentrations of pollutants in precipitation events, depending upon the amount of 

impervious surface area (imperv. ≡ imperviousness; TCu ≡ total copper; TZn ≡ total zinc). From the ARC 

(1998) in Georgia Department of Community Affairs (2003). 

 Event Mean Concentrations (mg/L) 

Land Use % 

Imperv 

BOD TDS COD TSS TP TKN NO3

-

N 

+ 

NO2-N 

TCu TZn NH4

+

N 

Forest/open 0.50 8 100 51 216 0.09 0.46 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Agriculture 0.50 4 678 72 400 0.40 209 0.50 0.04 0.10 0.001 

Large-lot single family (> 

2 acre) 

10.00 10.1 91 58 235 0.19 0.6 0.34 0.01 0.04 0.00 

Low-density single 

family (1-2 acres) 

12.00 11 100 190 280 0.67 0.20 2.85 0.03 0.22 0.004 

Low- to medium-density 

single family (0.5-1 acre) 

19.00 15 71 75 279 0.47 1.37 0.69 0.04 0.12 0.004 

Medium-density single 

family (0.5-1 acre) 

26.00 10.80 100 83 140 0.47 2.36 0.96 0.05 0.12 0.003 

Townhouse/apartment 48.00 10.80 51 70 109 0.19 1.24 0.69 0.02 0.14 0.003 

Commercial 85.00 9.71 100 190 248 0.66 3.20 1.18 0.04 0.28 0.005 

Office/light industrial 70.00 15.00 58 77 93 0.66 3.20 1.18 0.04 0.19 0.003 

Heavy industrial 80.00 9.70 100 61 91 0.24 1.28 0.63 0.04 0.19 0.001 

Average 35.10 10.41 145 93 209 0.36 22.1 0.87 0.03 0.14 0.0024 

Source: Watershed Management Model User’s Manual (ARC 1998). 

Instream sand and gravel dredging occupies about 8% of the 48-mile segment of the 

Chattahoochee River within the park, mostly near the McGinnis Ferry, Abbotts Bridge, and

Island Ford Units (Kunkle and Vana-Miller 2000) (e.g. Plate 21). There is a high demand for 

sand and gravel as construction materials in the expanding Atlanta metropolitan area, and 

instream gravel is especially desirable because stream abrasion produces durable, rounded, more 

chemically inert, well-sorted gravel. While sand dredging can improve aquatic habitat by 

creating small, short pools as habitat for fish and aquatic insects, removal of gravel and debris 

(snags etc.) is detrimental to aquatic life. Instream mining can also create more bank erosion, 

substrata instability, and loss of desirable substrata that lead to loss of critical habitat (Martin and 

Hess 1986, Meador and Layher 1998). Issuance of permits for these activities is under the 

purview of the USACE under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. The Metropolitan River 

Protection Act allows instream mining if bank erosion is avoided and the effluent returned to the 

river is equal to or less than the water withdrawn. The land-based activities are also controlled by 

the Chattahoochee Corridor Plan. Within the park, the NPS issues Special Use Permits for the 

sand and gravel operations. The USACE also allows the NPS to place conditions on USACE 

permits affecting the park. 

Not surprisingly, based upon an in-depth assessment, CH2Hill (2003) predicted that without 

additional watershed management efforts, impervious surface area will exceed 20% in the upper 

Chattahoochee basin in portions of Gwinnett, Fulton, and Cobb Counties, seriously in excess of 

the 7-10% impervious area coverage that has been identified as the maximum allowable in order 

to maintain healthy adjacent aquatic ecosystems (Schueler 1994, Mallin et al. 2001, Paul and 

Meyer 2001). 
91 

Table 27. Superfund sites within five miles of the park 

Site Name Location 

GAD980559413 Morgan Falls Landfill Roswell, Fulton Co., 0.3 mile east of the Chattahoochee 

River at Morgan Falls Dam (no longer operational) 

GAD980842777 Safety-Kleen 3-013-02 Norcross, Gwinnett Co., 1.8 mile south of the 

Chattahoochee River 

GAD981472236 Anacomp Inc. Cyanide Storage Bldg., Buford, Gwinnett Co., 4.75 

miles east of the Chattahoochee River 

Table 28. Land application sites (LAS, with permit numbers) and landfills (L; or sanitary landfill, SL, also 

indicating whether still operational and if not, when operations ceased) in the park area. Note that LAS, 

L, or SL sites were not found in Park Section IV. 

Section I 

Windermere Urban Reuse LAS GAU020195 

Sugar Hill LAS GAU020003 

Old Atlanta Club LAS GAU030980 

Capital Resources LAS GAU020082 

Miller/Trammel Trammel Road (ceased Dec 91) Landfill 058-007D 

Sugar Hill Appling Road PH1 (ceased Jul 93) Landfill 067-016D(SL) 

BFI, Richland Creek Landfill 067-032D(SL) 

Buford - Tuggle Greer Road (ceased Jun 88) Landfill 067-019D(L) 

Buford (ceased operation Dec 87) Landfill 067-008D 

Buford - Peachtree Ind. Blvd. PH2 (ceased Mar 89) Landfill 067-030D(SL) 

Section II 

Suwanee Landfill #944 

Gwinnett Landfill Inc. Landfill 067-054D(L) 

Section III 

Laurelwood Landfill # 868 

Glaze Landfill Landfill # 869 

Strickland - Kimball Bridge Road Landfill # 914 

Roswell First Baptist Church Landfill # 915 

Oxbo Landfill # 916 

GA Hwy 120 Landfill # 917 

Hagerman Landfill # 918 

Town & Country Motors Landfill # 919 

Azalea - Willeo Road Landfill # 920 

Nesbitt Ferry Road Landfill # 921 

Holcombe Bridge Baptist Church Landfill # 922 

Worley - Nesbitt Ferry Road Landfill # 923 

Rivermont - Holcombe Bridge Road Landfill # 924 

Hamil - Brumbelow Road (ceased Oct 88) Landfill 060-054D(L) 

Fulton County - Morgan Falls (ceased Aug 88) Landfill 067-007D(SL) 
92 

Plate 21. In-stream mining operation near river mile 317.5 on the Chattahoochee River in the park. 

Photos by E. Morris, 2008.

Assessment of Biological Resources With Respect To Water and Air Quality 

The water use classifications for the Chattahoochee River and its tributaries near the park vary; 

all are designated for fishing, and some are also designated for drinking water supplies and/or for 

recreation (Water Quality Control, Chapter 391-3-6(13); see pp. 87-90 of this Report). The 

fishing classification, as stated in Georgia’s Rules and Regulations for Water Quality Control 

Chapter 391-3-6-.03(6)(c), is established to protect the “Propagation of Fish, Shellfish, Game 

and Other Aquatic Life; secondary contact recreation in and on the water; or for any other use 

requiring water of a lower quality” (GA DNR 2008d). 

Water Quality Standards 

The State of Georgia has ambient water quality standards for common water quality parameters 

including dissolved oxygen (> 5 mg/L daily average), pH (between 6.0 and 8.5), turbidity (50 

NTU for freshwater), and chlorophyll a (μg/L) (GA DNR 2008e) (Appendices 5 and 6). In 

addition, water quality samples collected within a 30-day period that have a geometric mean 

fecal coliform count exceeding 200 cfu/100 mL during May through October, or exceeding 

1,000 mpn/100 mL during November through April, are in violation of the bacteria water quality 

standard for drinking water and the water quality standard for waters with designated use as 

Fishing. The state has also developed water use classifications and in-stream water quality 

standards for each use (Table 29). Clarification is warranted on the methods and units used for 

analysis of fecal bacteria, as GA DNR’s (2007e) standardized methods for the region report in 
93 

different units. Analysis of fecal coliforms may use either standard method 9221E (detection 

limit 2 cells or colony-forming units [CFU] as most probable number [mpn]/100 mL) or standard 

method 9222D (detection limit 1 colony/100 mL). 

Table 29. Georgia water use classifications and in-stream water quality standards for each use (GA DNR 

2008d; Georgia’s Rules and Regulations for Water Quality Control, Chapter 391-3-6-.03(6)(a), 391-3-6-

.03(6)(b), and 391-3-6-.03(6)(c)). 

 BACTERIA (fecal coliforms) DISSOLVED OXYGEN 

(except trout streams)a

pH TEMPERATURE 

(except trout streams)a

Use Classifcation 30-day Geom. 

Meanb

Maximum Daily Avg. 

(mg/L) 

Minimum 

(mg/L) 

Std. 

Units 

Maximum 

Rise (oF) 

Maximum 

(

o

F) 

Drinking Water 

requiring treatment 

1,000 Nov-Apr 4,000 Nov-Apr 5.0 4.0 6.0-8.5 5 90 

 200 May-Oct --- 

Recreation 200 (frw.)c

 --- 5.0 4.0 6.0-8.5 5 90 

 100 (coastal) 

Fishing 1,000 Nov-Apr 4,000 Nov-Apr 5.0 4.0 6.0-8.5 5 90 

 200 May-Oct 

Coastal Fishing d

 

Wild River No alteration of natural water quality 

Scenic River No alteration of natural water quality 

a

 Standards for Trout Streams for dissolved oxygen are an average of 6.0 mg/L and a minimum of 5.0 mg/L. No temperature 

alteration is allowed in Primary Trout Streams, and a temperature change of 2oF is allowed in secondary Trout Streams. 

b

 Fecal coliform densities are in units of number / 100 mL (Geom. ≡ geometric). Geometric means should be “based on at least 4 

samples collected from a given sampling site over a 30-day period at intervals not less than 24 hours”. The geometric mean of a 

series of N terms is the Nth root of their product. Example: the geometric mean of 2 and 18 is the square root of 36. Note: U.S. 

EPA (2003) recommends consideration of 400 mpn/100 mL as the highest acceptable level of fecal coliforms if samples are taken 

less frequently. 

c

 Frw. ≡ freshwater. 

d

 Standards are the same as for Fishing with exception of dissolved oxygen, which is site-specific. 

Two points complicate assessment of Chattahoochee water quality in the park area from the 

perspective of contamination by fecal bacteria. First, although the state’s standards are based 

upon geometric means of at least 4 samples collected within a 30-day period, most water quality 

stations do not collect or have not collected samples for fecal bacteria that frequently. In other 

words, for example, at the stations it maintained, GA DNR did not collect fecal coliform data 

frequently enough to assess whether water quality was in violation of its state standard. 

Second, more than 20 years ago, the U.S. EPA imposed water quality standards for Escherichia 

coli counts at freshwater beaches used for swimming as follows: The geometric mean of at least 

5 samples collected over a 30-day period should not exceed 126 E. coli cells or cfu per 100 mL; 

and for a single water sample, E. coli counts should not exceed 235 cells or cfu per 100 mL. 

Analysis of Escherichia coli may use either standard method 9221B.1 (detection limit 2 mpn/100 

mL) or 9221F (detection limit 2 mpn/100 mL) (GA DNR 2007e). Although there are no bathing 

beaches per se along the Chattahoochee in the park area, there is sufficient water contact through 

tubing, rafting, wading etc. to warrant analogous concern. Thus, the BacteriALERT web site 

refers to the U.S. EPA standards for E. coli at beaches where there is extensive water contact (see 

http://ga2.er.usgs.gov/bacteria/epastandards.cfm). The U.S. EPA recommended that states adopt 

either E. coli standards or standards for enterococci bacteria as more reliable indicators of 

degraded waters that pose human health risks. Georgia has not yet adopted state standards for 

either parameter, but in the absence of comparable or stricter state standards, the federal 
94 

standards apply. Moreover, for waters that are not used for substantial human contact, the U.S. 

EPA (2003) recommends consideration of more than 400 mpn fecal coliform bacteria per 100 

mL as indicative of water quality degradation, from data not collected with sufficient frequency 

to calculate geometric means. 

Given the above information, in this Report several approaches were taken to assess water 

quality degradation from fecal bacteria, as follows: For all of the datasets considered, wherever 

there were sufficient data, geometric means were calculated for fecal coliforms and assessed 

using the state standards; and wherever there were sufficient data, geometric means were 

calculated for E. coli and assessed using the U.S. EPA standards for waters with substantial 

human contact. Where the frequency of data collection was insufficient to calculate geometric 

means, the data were analyzed for suggestion of water quality degradation considering (i) the 

state standards for fecal coliform bacteria (although based upon geometric means) and (ii) the 

U.S. EPA recommendation of > 400 mpn fecal bacteria (used to assess both fecal coliform data 

and E. coli data). 

Georgia's Rules and Regulations for Water Quality Control, Chapter 391-3-6-.03(5)(c) state that 

“All waters shall be free from material related to municipal, industrial or other discharges which 

produce turbidity, color, odor or other objectionable conditions which interfere with 

legitimatewater uses”. Stream segments are placed on the state’s Impaired Waters (303(d)) list 

based on water quality and biota sampling data (Appendices 5 and 6). For the water use 

classification of Fishing, the criterion violated is listed as Biota Impacted (Bio(F)), reflecting the 

fact that studies have shown a significant impact of water quality-related habitat degradation on 

fish (GA DNR 2008c,d). Potential causes may be urban runoff, (other) nonpoint sources, and/or 

a municipal facility(s) (point sources). For fecal coliforms (microbial pathogens), the standards 

were developed in consideration of general recreational uses, although the state’s general policy 

is not to encourage swimming in any surface waters (GA DNR 2003a, 2008a). A stream is 

placed on the “partial support” list if more than 10% of the samples exceed the fecal coliform 

criteria and on the not support list if more than 25% of the samples exceed the standard. 

Georgia also has an in-stream criterion for PCBs, found in Georgia’s Rules and Regulations for 

Water Quality Control, Chapter 391-3-6, revised in November 2005: Georgia Regulation 391-3-

6-.03(5)(e)(iv) states that “Instream concentrations of chemical constituents [including PCBs] 

listed by the U.S. EPA as toxic priority pollutants pursuant to Section 307(a)(1) of the Federal 

Clean Water Act (as amended) shall not exceed indicated criteria under annual average or higher 

stream flow conditions” (GA DNR 2007b, 2008e). The state’s in-stream target, 0.00017 μg/L, is 

protective of the GA DNR fish consumption advisory action level of 0.1 mg/kg, and the Federal 

Drug Administration action level of 2.0 mg/kg for fish consumption. PCB exposure has been 

related to an array of adverse health effects in fish, birds, and mammals, including toxic effects 

on the liver, gastrointestinal system, blood, skin, endocrine system, immune system, nervous 

system, and reproductive system, as well as developmental effects and malignant tumors (GA 

DNR 2007b, and references therein; Adams et al. 1999, GA DNR 2007b). 

In addition, GA DNR-EPD has recommended fish consumption guidelines for mercury, PCBs, 

and chlordane from Buford Dam to Morgan Falls Dam, and a separate set of recommendations 

for the river below Morgan Falls Dam. The guidelines are revised each year based upon ongoing 

sampling results. Because of their carcinogenic potential, it was recommended that PCBs should 
95 

not exceed 100 ppb in fish. GA DNR also stated that the need for a health advisory is “clear, 

particularly for children and pregnant and nursing mothers” (Kunkle and Vana-Miller 2000). 

GA DNR’s management strategies to reduce contamination in impaired streams in urban areas 

include sustained compliance with NPDES permit limits and requirements; adoption of National 

Resource Conservation Service Conservation Practices; application of best-management 

practices that are appropriate to specific agricultural and urban land uses; further development 

and streamlining of mechanisms for identifying, reporting, and correcting illicit connections, 

breaks, and other sanitary sewer or waste containment problems; for fecal coliforms, adoption of 

local ordinances requiring periodic septic system inspection, pumpout, and maintenance; and 

public education (GA DNR 2003a, 2008a). 

In addition to these standards, Phase I NPDES permits regulate stormwater discharges associated 

with specific industrial activities (including construction sites > 1 acre in area) and large and 

medium municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4s) that serve populations of 100,000 or 

more. MS4 permits are supposed to prohibit non-stormwater discharges (i.e., illicit discharges) 

from entering into storm sewer systems and require controls or best-management practices to 

reduce pollutant discharges to the “maximum extent practicable” (GA DNR 2008e,f). The intent 

is to reduce exposure of stormwater to pollutants. In the park area, 99.2% of the Chattahoochee 

River watershed (167,682 acres) from Johns Creek to Morgan Falls, 100% of the Long Island 

Creek watershed (5.16 acres), and 95% of the Suwanee Creek watershed (14.09 acres) are in 

storm sewer MS4 areas (GA DNR 2008a). 

Impaired Surface Water Quality and Habitat 

The most recent Management Plan, presently in draft form (NPS 2008a), described a major 

concern for CHATT as progressive, increased water quality degradation from urban runoff, 

including sediment loading, fecal coliform bacteria, toxic metals, and other toxic organic 

substances. In recognition of the deterioration of surface water quality in the area (Table 23), 

GA DNR (2008e,g) has included much of the mainstem Chattahoochee and most of its major 

tributaries in the park area on its 303d list of impaired waters that do not support or only partially 

support their designated use(s) (Plates 14-16, Table 30). Every Park Unit except for #16, Paces 

Mill, is affected by one or more impaired streams. 

The most visible pollutant is TSS from high suspended sediment loading (Plates 15, 16, and 22). 

Two streams in the area, Suwanee Creek and Long Island Creek, are on the state’s 303d list as no 

longer meeting their designated uses for fish/fishing because of habitat degradation from 

excessive sedimentation and other urban runoff effects (Table 30, and see below). Land use 

categories that contribute sediment loading have been estimated for Suwanee Creek and Long 

Island Creek (Table 31); such partitioning among land use types was not attempted for sources of 

fecal coliforms. 

Much of the mainstem Chattahoochee River and most of its tributaries in the park area are 

impaired for excessive fecal coliform bacterial densities (Table 30). Other microbial pathogens 

were reported in the park in the 1990s, including protozoans Giardia and Cryptosporidium which 

can cause serious human illness and death (NPS 2004a, LeChevallier et al. 1991). 
96 

The mainstem Chattahoochee River from Morgan Falls Dam to Peachtree Creek is impaired for 

fish consumption because of excessive PCBs in fish tissues (below). In 1995, GA DNR sampled 

fish in the mainstem Chattahoochee River for 43 parameters including pesticides, herbicides, 

PCBs, and other CECs, and reported that in some park waters, levels of mercury, PCBs, and 

chlordane exceeded U.S. EPA recommendations and the state of Georgia for fish consumption 

(Kunkle and Vana-Miller 2000). In Park Section IV, Rottenwood Creek is impaired for 

macroinvertebrate community health (BioM) (Table 30). 

Plate 22. Haw Creek near the northern edge of the park, showing high turbidity, excessive sedimentation, 

and other urban debris. Photo by E. Morris, 2008.

In the mid- to late 1990s, four tributaries (Sope Creek, a tributary to Sope Creek, Rottenwood 

Creek, and Willeo Creek) were included on the state’s 303d list as impaired for fishing because 

of elevated cadmium, copper and lead (tributary to Sope Creek) or lead (the other three streams). 

GA DNR-EPD sampling efforts in 1994-1995 established toxic metals as second to fecal 

coliforms as pollutants of concern (Kunkle and Vana-Miller 2000). Although these metals as 

well as zinc and aluminum (the latter, in Little Nancy Creek as mentioned) remain at excessive 

water-column concentrations in many park waters (Table 23, Appendices 2 and 3), there is no 

mention at present of impairment to these streams from toxic metals on the state’s 2008 303d list 

(Table 30). Moreover, GA DNR only samples the sites shown in Figures 3-6 and 17-20 during 

one year (monthly or less frequently) every five years. Thus, the river used most heavily in the 

state for drinking water supplies is sampled by the state’s environmental agency every five years. 

 
97 

Table 30. Surface water quality sampling stations and status (+ impaired, and parameter(s) causing 

impairment) in the outfall area of Lake Lanier and the park area (within about 5 miles upstream from the 

park, considering four sections containing the 16 Park Units). From GA DNR (2008e,g).* 

Area Station/Data 

Description 

Designated 

Use(s) 

Status (+ Supporting Designated 

Use(s), and Parameter(s) Causing 

Impairment) 

Lake Lanier GA DNR 12040001 Recreation, 

Drinking water, 

Hydropower etc. 

Assessment pending 

Park Section I 

 

# 1 Bowmans Island 

Haw Creek ---- Fishing Supporting 

Richland Creek (headwaters 

to Chattahoochee R.) 

USGS 02334480 / 

Gwinnett Co. 

Fishing Partially supporting (fecal coliforms - 

impaired from urban runoff). TMDL 

completed. 

Chattahoochee R. GA DNR 12043001 

Gwinnett/Forsyth 

Co.s 

Fishing Supporting 

# 2 Orrs Ferry 

James Creek Forsyth Co. JSF-1 Fishing Not supporting (fecal coliforms). 

TMDL completed. 

# 3 Settles Bridge 

Level Creek (headwaters to 

Chattahoochee R.) 

USGS 02334578 / 

Gwinnett Co. 

Fishing Not supporting (fecal coliforms - 

impaired from urban and other nonpoint [NP] runoff). TMDL completed. 

Dick Creek Forsyth Co. DKF-1 Fishing Supporting in park area 

Section II 

 

# 4 McGinnis Ferry 

Chattahoochee R. (Dick Cr. 

to Johns Cr.) Forsyth/Fulton 

Cos. 

GA DNR 12048001 

Forsyth Co. CHF-1 

Drinking water, 

Recreation 

Not supporting (pH, 12 miles) – 

impaired from urban runoff; also NP. 

Prioritized for TMDL in 2012. 

# 5 Suwanee Creek 

 Suwanee Creek (Mill Cr. to 

Chattahoochee R.) 

USGS 02334485 / 

Gwinnett Co. GA 

DNR 12050301 

Fishing Not supporting (fecal coliforms; 

biota-impacted from sediment 

loading). Impaired from urban runoff. 

TMDL completed for fecal coliforms, 

TSS. 

# 6 Abbotts Bridge 

Cauley Creek Fulton Co. station 

CC-2 up from 

Abbotts Bridge 

Fishing Supporting 

# 7 Medlock Bridge 

Chattahoochee R. ---- Fishing Supporting 

# 8 Jones Bridge 

Johns Creek GA DNR 12054401, 

Fulton Co. JO-1 

Fishing Not supporting (fecal coliforms) - 

impaired from urban runoff. TMDL 

completed. 
98 

Table 30. (Continued). 

Area Station/Data 

Description 

Designated 

Use(s) 

Status (+ Supporting Designated 

Use(s), and Parameter(s) Causing 

Impairment) 

Sections II-III 

 

Chattahoochee River, Johns 

Creek to Morgan Falls 

(Gwinnett/Fulton/Cobb Co.s) 

---- Drinking water, 

Recreation 

Partially supporting (fecal coliforms, 

pH – 17 miles) - impaired from urban 

runoff. TMDL drafted for fecal 

coliforms in 2007; TMDL 

development for pH has been 

deferred to U.S. EPA. 

Section III 

 

# 9 Holcomb Bridge 

Chattahoochee River 

(Fulton/Gwinnett Co.s) 

GA DNR 12055001 Drinking water, 

Recreation 

Not supporting (fecal coliforms, pH) 

Crooked Creek (Gwinnett 

Co.) 

GA DNR 12055361, 

USGS 02335350 

Fishing Not supporting (fecal coliforms) - 

impaired from urban runoff. TMDL 

completed. 

# 10 Island Ford 

Ball Mill Creek 

(Fulton/Dekalb Co.s) 

Fulton Co. CK-1 Fishing Not supporting (fecal coliforms) 

TMDL completed. 

# 12 Gold Branch 

Willeo Creek (Cobb/Fulton 

Co.s - Gilhams Lake to Chatt 

R. 

GA DNR 12064001 

Cobb Co. WL4 

Fishing Not supporting (fecal coliforms) - 

impaired from urban runoff. TMDL 

completed. 

# 13 Johnsons Ferry 

March (Marsh) Creek (Fulton 

Co. – headwaters to 

Chattahoochee R.) 

Fulton Co. MA-1 Fishing Not supporting (fecal coliforms) - 

impaired from urban runoff. TMDL 

completed. 

Sections III - IV 

 

Chattahoochee River, 

Morgan Falls Dam to 

Peachtree Creek 

(Fulton/Cobb Co.s) 

GA DNR 12070001 

GA DNR 12070011 

Recreation, 

Drinking water, 

Fishing 

Not supporting (12 miles - fecal 

coliforms; fish consumption 

guidelines - PCBs). TMDLs 

completed for both parameters. 
99 

Table 30. (Continued). 

Area Station/Data 

Description 

Designated 

Use(s) 

Status (+ Supporting Designated 

Use(s), and Parameter(s) Causing 

Impairment) 

Section IV 

 

# 14 Cochran Shoals 

Sope Creek (Cobb Co. – 

headwaters to 

Chattahoochee R.) 

Cobb Co. SP6; GA 

DNR 12072101 

 Fishing Not supporting (fecal coliforms) - 

impaired from urban runoff. TMDL 

completed. 

# 15 Palisades 

Chattahoochee R. (Long 

Island Shoals/Whitewater 

Creek trib.) 

GA DNR 12073901 Recreation, 

Drinking water 

Not supporting (fecal coliforms; fish 

consumption guidelines - PCBs) - see 

above. 

Long Island Creek (Fulton 

Co. – headwaters to 

Chattahoochee R.) 

GA DNR 12073201 Fishing Not supporting (fecal coliforms; biotaimpacted from sediment loading). 

Impaired from urban runoff. TMDL 

completed for fecal coliforms; TMDL 

drafted for biota (fish - SS) in 2007. 

Rottenwood Creek (Cobb Co. 

– headwaters to 

Chattahoochee R.) 

Cobb Co. RT5 Fishing Not supporting (fecal coliforms; also 

BioM ≡ macroinvertebrate community 

impacted). Impaired from urban 

runoff. TMDL completed for fecal 

coliforms. 

# 16 Paces Mill 

Little Nancy Creek Cobb Co. NA1 Fishing Supporting 

Little Nancy Creek Cobb Co. NA2 Fishing Supporting 

Table 31. Estimated contribution of land use type to sediment loading in Long Island Creek and Suwanee 

Creek, the two streams that are impaired because of suspended sediment loading (GA DNR 2007a). 

Source Long Island Creek 

(tons per year) 

Suwanee Creek 

(tons per year) 

Open water --- --- --- --- 

Low-intensity residential 179.7 (45.47%) 538.2 (38.19%) 

High-intensity residential 15.8 (4.00%) 42.7 (3.03%) 

High-intensity comm/ indust/ transp 1.9 (0.47%) 12.4 (0.88%) 

Quarries, strip mines, rocks --- --- --- --- 

Roads 140.3 (35.50%) 353.4 (25.08%) 

Deciduous forest 2.6 (0.66%) 16.7 (1.18%) 

Evergreen forest 1.9 (0.49%) 3.6 (0.25%) 

Mixed forest 0.0 (0.01%) 0.8 (0.06%) 

Row crops, pasture 4.7 (1.19%) 326.3 (23.15%) 

Other grasses (urban, recreational) 47.8 (12.10%) 71.4 (5.06%) 

Woody wetland 0.4 (0.09%) 38.1 (2.70%) 

Non-forested wetland (fresh) --- --- --- --- 
100 

TMDLs have been developed for some of the impaired waters in or near the park (Tables 30 and

32), beginning in 1998 for fecal coliforms in James Creek which is still impaired because of high 

fecal coliform levels (GA DNR 2008e,g). The TMDLs are supposed to be “platforms for 

establishing courses of actions to restore water quality” (GA DNR 2008a); procedures are to be 

set in place to track and evaluate implementation of corrective management practices and 

activities. GA DNR’s management strategies to reduce contamination in impaired streams in 

urban areas include sustained compliance with NPDES permit limits and requirements; adoption 

of National Resource Conservation Service Conservation Practices; application of bestmanagement practices that are appropriate to specific agricultural and urban land uses; further 

development and streamlining of mechanisms for identifying, reporting, and correcting illicit 

connections, breaks, and other sanitary sewer or waste contain-ment problems; for fecal 

coliforms, adoption of local ordinances requiring periodic septic system inspection, pumpout, 

and maintenance; and public education (GA DNR 2003, 2008a). 

Insufficient Monitoring to Evaluate or Protect the Chattahoochee and Its Tributaries 

The 5-year rotational sampling cycle for water quality that has been imposed by GA DNR in the 

late 1990s meant that the state environmental agency which is responsible for maintaining 

acceptable water quality did not sample the Chattahoochee River or its tributaries over 4-year 

periods (Dunbar 2007). Thus, the responsibility for water quality data collection had to fall 

elsewhere – to the federal USGS or to local county governments which, because of funding 

constraints and prioritization issues, do not sample most of its stations in the park area with 

consistency or sufficient frequency (weekly to biweekly) to capture many precipitation events 

that carry nonpoint pollution into park waters (see Table 21). 

Unfortunately, however, GA DNR presently is not adhering to even a four-year gap in sampling. 

Although the state agency has not officially changed to another monitoring schedule, since 2005 

it has deviated significantly from that schedule (Mr. M. Basmajian, GA DNR-EPD Watershed 

Protection Branch, Ambient Monitoring Unit, pers. comm. 2008). USGS historically has done 

most of the stream monitoring sample collection for the state agency as part of a cooperative 

agreement, and GA DNR has continued to use the USGS in that capacity but at a greatly reduced 

number of stations. In 2009, USGS will do no basin rotation stations but, rather, only some 

long-term statewide trend stations that are far from the park. GA DNR is planning to “ramp up 

sample collections but on special one-year projects, not basin rotation” (M. Basmajian, pers. 

comm., 2008). Thus, there is apparently is no plan by GA DNR or the USGS to sample the 

Chattahoochee or its tributaries in the park area in the future, and the state agency has conducted 

very limited sampling in these waters since the last basin rotation in 2000, nearly a decade ago. 

The state agency’s limited more recent data post-2000 are not expected to be available until 2009 

(M. Basmajian, pers. comm., 2008).
101 

Table 32. TMDLs developed for the mainstem Chattahoochee River and tributaries in 

the park area (GA DNR 1998, 2003a,b, 2007a, 2008a). 

Stream "Preasent"Load* 

(1998-2008) 

Reduction 

Needed 

Allowable Average 

Load 

Load Allocation 

(Waste Load Allocation) 

Fecal Coliform TMDLs (counts/30 days*; Fishing, Recreation, Drinking Water)* 

Section I 

 

Richland Creek 3.32 x 1013 85% 5.04 x 1012 3.08 x 1012 

(WLA 3.54 x 1010) 

James Creek ? [1.392 x 1011 as of 1998] none, 

as of 1998 

1.392 x 1011 as of 

1998 (175 cfu/100 

mL) 

“no reduction needed” as of 

the 1998 TMDL which has 

not been updated 

Level Creek 2.72 x 1013 86% 3.90 x 1012 2.15 x 1012

Section II 

 

Suwanee Creek 5.80 x 1013 85% 8.62 x 1011 5.05 x 1012 

(WLA 1.76 x 1011) 

Johns Creek 3.26 x 1012 61% 1.26 x 1012 5.46 x 1011 

Chattahoochee River 

(Johns Creek - 

 Morgan Falls) 

1.23 x 1015 57% 5.32 x 1014 1.46 x 1014 

(WLA 1.86 x 1012) 

Section III 

 

Crooked Creek 3.62 x 1012 77% 8.36 x 1010 2.85 x 1011

Ball Mill Creek 2.49 x 1012 51% 1.23 x 1012 1.01 x 1011

Big Creek 1.01 x 1013 39% 6.17 x 1012 1.00 x 1012 

Willeo Creek 1.51 x 1012 22% 1.18 x 1012 3.68 x 1011

March (Marsh) Creek 9.64 x 1011 60% 3.85 x 1011 1.24 x 1011

Chattahoochee 3.16 x 1014 48% 1.64 x 1013 8.57 x 1013 

(WLA 5.15 x 1012) 

River (Morgan Falls - 

Peachtree Creek) 

 

Section IV 

Sope Creek 3.87 x 1014 83% 6.46 x 1013 2.09 x 1013

Long Island Creek 5.69 x 1011 52% 2.75 x 1011 8.02 x 1010 

Rottenwood Creek 3.02 x 1012 68% 9.79 x 1010 1.74 x 1011 

(WLA 4.10 x 1011) 

Sediment TMDLs (Biota-Impacted)

Section II 

 

Suwanee Creek 1,500.4 tons/year 55.58% 666.5 tons/year 192.9 tons/year 

Section IV 

Long Island Creek 395.1 tons/year 38.18% 244.3 tons/year 73.3 tons/year 

PCBs TMDL (fish consumption)**

Chattahoochee River 

(Morgan Falls - 

Peachtree Creek) 

0.13 kg/day 99.20% 1.07 x 10-3

 kg/day (1.07 x 10-3 kg/day) - WLA 

[WLA: Σ( QWLA 

*0.00017μg/L)] 

*30-day geometric mean for bacterial counts (colony-forming units); date when loads were developed varies from 1998 to 2008, 

depending on the stream or the river segment. 

 ** The TMDL for PCBs for the Chattahoochee River equals the annual average flow at Atlanta (ca. 2,570 cfs multiplied by the 

water quality standard (0.00017 μg/L).Also see GA DNR (2008h). 

Lack of Enforcement of Water Quality Regulations 

The fact that water quality degradation has continued over the past several decades – and 

certainly, over the past decade – improving for few parameters (e.g. DO – Kunkle and VanaMiller 2000), underscores an overall failure by state and federal authorities to enforce water 
102 

quality regulations (e.g. Plate 23). As in other areas of this nation, the problem likely is directly 

related to the lack of sufficient funds for state and federal environmental agencies (National 

Research Council 2000). Insufficient funds translate into lack of enforcement through, for 

example, insufficient numbers of state inspectors in urban construction areas and other sites of 

pollution sources. 

Plate 23. Construction of a new wastewater treatment plant (upper panel) at Holcomb Bridge on the 

Chattahoochee River, including a clear violation of sediment erosion control regulations (lower panel). 

Photo by E. Morris, 2008.

Air Quality Standards 

The federal Clean Air Act has set standards for six “criteria” pollutants (including two categories 

for one of these, particulate matter) that must meet a health-based regulatory standard (Table 33; 

GA DNR 2007b). The regulatory standards are health-based, and concentrations above the 

standards are considered unhealthy for sensitive groups (GA DNR 2007b). For example, the 8-

hour ozone standard is attained when the average of the fourth highest concentration measured is 

equal to or below 0.08 ppm (0.085 ppm with the EPA rounding convention) averaged over three 

years. The standards for the six criteria pollutants are fairly straightforward except for the PM2.5

standard: To be in compliance with the federal air PM2.5 standard, an area must have an annual 

arithmetic mean concentration of less than or equal to 15 μg PM2.5 /m3

. An additional 

requirement imposed a stricter standard for fine particulate matter as of December 2006, wherein 
103 

the 98th percentile 24-hour concentration must be less than or equal to 35 μg PM2.5 /m3

 (GA 

DNR 2007b). 

Another large group of compounds, air toxics, is monitored in the Air Toxics Network. Sources 

of these pollutants include vehicle emissions, stationary source emissions, and natural sources. 

One air toxic, lead, is designated as a criteria pollutant (above). Attainment standards have not 

been set for any of the other air toxics. Air toxics are analyzed annually for theoretical lifetime 

cancer risk and potential non-cancer health effects. 

The Georgia Air Sampling Network of GA DNR-EPD collects data from stations across the 

state, including six stations in the Atlanta area (Fulton County) near the park, two in Cobb 

County, one in Gwinnett County, and four in DeKalb County (see below) (GA DNR 2007b). 

Monitoring is conducted year-round except for ozone, which is sampled from March through 

October, and except for the continuous Photochemical Assessment Monitoring Stations (PAMS) 

which sample volatile organic compounds only in summer (June to August). All official 

monitoring that is conducted in support of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS) is required to use U.S. EPA-defined reference methods and undergoes extensive 

quality assurance review. Sites are selected to measure the highest observable concentrations, 

and to determine representative concentrations in areas of high population density, determine the 

impact of significant sources or source categories on ambient pollution levels, determine general 

background concentrations, and determine the concentrations of selected compounds that 

contribute to formation of ground-level ozone (GA DNR 2007b). Data from EPD’s continuous 

monitors are published at http://www.georgiaair.org/amp. The data are updated hourly. 

Table 33. U.S. EPA standards for six “criteria” pollutants as required by the Clean Air Act, indicating 

recent modifications (cross-outs; GA DNR 2007b). 

Compound Primary Standard Secondary 

Standard 

Units Time Interval

Sulfur dioxide (SO2) ---- 0.50 ppm 3-hour 

 0.14 ---- ppm 24-hour 

 0.03 ---- ppm annual mean 

Particulate matter 

(PM2.5) 

15 same as primary μg/m3

 annual arithmetic 

mean (3 years) 

 98th percentile 

65.0a

/35.0 

same as primary μg/m3

 24-hour 

Particulate matter (PM10) 50.0b

 same as primary μg/m3 annual arithmetic 

mean 

 150 same as primary μg/m3

 24-hour 

Carbon monoxide (CO) 2nd

 maximum 35.0 ---- ppm 1-hour 

 2nd maximum 9.0 ---- ppm 8-hour average 

Ozone (O3) 4th maximum 0.085 same as primary ppm 8-hour average 

Nitrogen dioxide (NO2) 0.053 same as primary ppm annual mean 

Lead (Pb) 1.5 same as primary μg/m3 calendar quarter 
104 

Air Resources 

Among the stations of the Georgia Air Sampling Network near the park, the six stations in 

Atlanta (Fulton County) that are nearest to the park collectively monitor for ten parameters, 

including only 1 station that monitors for O3, 1 station that monitors for CO, NO2, VOCs, 

SVOCs, and/or TMs; 3 stations that monitor for PM2.5 and/or TM10, and 2 stations that monitor 

for SO2 (Table 34). These parameters include five of the six that are presently on the criteria 

pollutant list (exception, lead). There are also two sites in Cobb County, west of the park, that 

monitor for O3 and/or PM2.5 (24h FRM), including one in Kennesaw Mountain National 

Battlefield Park; one site in Gwinnett County, east of the park, that monitors for O3 and PM2.5 

(24h FRM and cont.); and four sites in DeKalb County, southeast of the park, that collectively 

monitor for various parameters including all six criterion pollutants (Table 34). 

As of 2006, all of Georgia has been in compliance with the standards for four of the six criteria 

pollutants – Pb, SO2, CO, and NO2 – and in compliance with one of the two categories of a fifth 

criteria pollutant, PM (PM10) (GA DNR 2007b). Nevertheless, air quality is a serious concern 

for the park because violations of the federal/state ozone standard and the PM2.5 standard have 

continued to occur for several years. Thirteen counties surrounding the park, including Cobb, 

Gwinnett, Fulton, Forsyth and DeKalb Counties (also Rockdale, Coweta, Cherokee, Henry, 

Clayton, Fayette, Paulding, and Douglas Counties), were collectively designated a nonattainment area for air quality under the Clean Air Act because of ozone violations (8-hour ozone 

non-attainment area; GA DNR 2007b; e.g. Figure 28). The Atlanta ozone non-attainment area 

was officially expanded in 2004 to include Barrow, Bartow, Carroll, Hall, Newton, Spalding, and 

Walton Counties, based upon new monitoring data and implementation of the 8-hour ozone 

standard (GA DNR 2007b). Thus, the Atlanta ozone non-attainment area now includes 20 

counties surrounding the park. The same 20 counties in the metropolitan Atlanta area are also a 

non-attainment area for PM2.5, along with portions of Heard and Putnam Counties (GA DNR 

2007b) (Figure 29). This situation is a growing concern considering that the Atlanta 

metropolitan population center is projected to continue rapid growth (ARC 2007). It is 

anticipated that air quality, including smog, ozone, particulates, and many other contaminants 

(GA DNR 2007b), will continue to degrade with increasing population growth (ARC 2007). 

Ozone is monitored in March through October, since that period is when ozone production 

mostly occurs. This pollutant is a serious health concern because it attacks the mammalian 

respiratory system, causing coughs, chest pain, throat irritation, increased susceptibility to 

respiratory infections, and impaired lung functioning. In fact, moderate ozone levels can interfere 

with performance of normal daily activities by people who have asthma or other respiratory 

diseases. Of more concern than acute affects are potential chronic effects of repeated exposure 

to ozone, which can lead to lung inflammation and permanent scarring of lung tissue, loss of 

lung function, and reduced lung elasticity. 
105 

Table 34. Georgia air sampling station locations in the general airshed of the park during 2006, and 

parameters monitored (most recent available information). Parameters are indicated as ozone (O3), 

carbon monoxide (CO), PM2.5 (particulate matter [PM], up to 2.5 μm in maximum dimension – continuous 

or 24th FRM, Federal Reference Method, the official measurement technique), PM10 (PM up to 10 μm in 

maximum dimension), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), volatile organic compounds (VOCs, 

toxic [TO] types 14/15), semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs), and trace metals (TMs). From GA 

DNR (2007b).* 

Station Name and 

Number O3 CO 

PM2.5 

cont. 

PM2.5 

24th FRM PM10 NO2 NOy SO2

VOCs 

(TO-14/15) SVOCs TMs 

Atlanta (Fulton County)

Fulton County 

Health Department 

#131210001 

--- --- --- --- x --- --- --- --- --- --- 

Utoy Creek 

#131210020 

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- x x x 

E. Rivers School 

#131210032 

--- --- --- x x --- --- --- --- --- --- 

Georgia Tech 

#131210048 

--- --- --- x x x --- x --- --- --- 

Confederate Ave. 

#131210055 

x --- x --- --- --- --- x --- --- --- 

Roswell Road 

#131210099 

--- x --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 

Cobb County

National Guard, 

Kennesaw 

#13067003 

x --- --- x --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 

Macland Aq. Center, 

Powder Springs 

#130670004 

--- --- --- x --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 

Gwinnett County

Gwinnett Tech, 

Lawrenceville 

#131350002 

x --- x x --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 

DeKalb County** 

Police Department, 

Doraville 

#130892001 

--- --- --- x x --- --- --- --- --- --- 

Idlewood Rd., 

Tucker 

#130893001 

x --- --- --- --- x x --- --- --- --- 

South DeKalb, 

Decatur 

#130890002 

x x x x --- x x --- x --- x 

* A seventh station in Atlanta, Fire Station 8 (#131210039), was discontinued because it did not meet siting requirements. Its 

sampling for PM2.5 FRM was moved to the Georgia Tech site as indicated. 

** The Tucker site and South DeKalb site in DeKalb County also monitor for PAMS VOCs and carbonyls. In addition, the South 

DeKalb site monitors for PM2.5 speciation. A fourth site in DeKalb County, DMRC (#130890003) in Decatur, monitors only for 

lead (Pb), and is the only site in the general park area that tracks this sixth criterion pollutant. 
106 

Figure 28. Metropolitan Atlanta ozone – number of violation days per year from 1985 through June 2006 

(GA DNR 2007b). 

Figure 29. The fine-particulate (PM2.5) design value, daily standard at six sites with available data, 

showing exceedances of the old standard at sites in the Atlanta metropolitan area near the park, 

exceedances of the new standard in 2000-2003 in all sites for which data were available, exceedances of 

the new standard in 2002-2004 in Gwinnett County, and exceedances of the new standard in 2003-2005 

at four of the six sites (modified from GA DNR 2007b). 
107 

Fine particulate matter (PM2.5) is produced by various sources including industrial combustion, 

residential combustion, and vehicle exhaust, or when combustion gases are chemically 

transformed into particles (GA DNR 2007b). The state monitors 53 particle species such as gold, 

sulfate, lead, arsenic and silicon. Recent research has indicated that PM2.5 is a human health 

concern because it can penetrate into sensitive areas of the lungs and cause persistent coughs, 

phlegm, wheezing, more serious respiratory and cardiovascular disease, cancers, and premature 

death at particle levels well below the existing standards (Schwela 2000, U.S. EPA 2004, GA 

DNR 2007b). Mounting evidence indicates that PM2.5 enhance delivery of other pollutants and 

allergens deep into lung tissue where the effects are exacerbated. Especially sensitive groups 

include children, the elderly, and people with cardiovascular or lung diseases such as asthma. 

PM2.5 also impair visibility and contribute to haze in the humid conditions that characterize the 

north Georgia climate (U.S. EPA 2004). 

The largest coal-fired power plant in the US, Georgia Power’s Robert W. Scherer Plant, is just 

north of the City of Macon, GA in the City of Juliette, about 65 miles southeast of the park. The 

Scherer coal-fired power plant emits ~25.3 million tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) per year, more 

than Brazil’s entire power sector (Goodell 2006) (Table 35), and it is ranked 20th in the world for 

CO2 emissions (2007 list of the Center for Global Development). In addition to CO2 emissions, 

this power plant also discharges substantial sulfur dioxide (SO2, involved in acid deposition), 

mercury and other toxic pollutants to the airshed that can affect the Atlanta metropolitan area. 

Table 35. Air releases (as of 2000 and thus, somewhat outdated) by five coal-fired power plants, within 

~3 to 65 miles from the park, that can affect the park’s air quality (directional distance from the park: w. ≡

west, s. ≡ south, se. ≡ southeast). All releases are given in tons per year except mercury, which is given 

in pounds per year. Total air releases ≡ the sum of NOx, SO2, CO2, PM10, VOCs, acid gases, and 

mercury. From Clean Air Task Force for Clear the Air (2002). 

Plant 

Total 

Reported 

Air 

Releases 

NOX SO2 CO2 PM2.5 PM10 VOCs Acid 

Gases 

Hg 

(lbs.) 

Bowen 

(Bartow Co., 

~31 miles w.) 

21,431,524 43,437 155,374 21,220,502 1,116 2,460 247 9,514 637 

Hammond 

(Floyd Co., 

~57 miles w.) 

5,503,241 16,867 28,282 5,456,480 233 512 63 1,037 90 

Jack Mcdonough 

(Cobb Co., 

~3 miles s.) 

3,352,699 5,375 28,242 3,317,349 143 314 39 1,380 61 

Scherer 

(Monroe Co., 

~65 miles se.) 

23,837,942 38,145 91,286 23,701,644 1,005 1,807 320 4,740 758 

Wansley 

(Heard Co., 

~47 miles s.) 

9,976,494 19,079 69,218 9,883,816 424 936 117 3,268 251 

Yates 

(Coweta Co., 

~38 miles s.) 

6,794,686 10,640 45,104 6,736,643 287 633 77 1,589 194 

Deposition of airborne toxic substances from various sources may be contributing to the elevated 

concentrations of certain heavy metals (e.g. lead, zinc) that have been detected in surface waters 

in the park (DeVivo 2006). The Bowen Plant, ca. 31 miles west of the park, has almost as much 
108 

total air pollutant emissions as the Scherer Plant (Table 35), and is the third largest CO2 emitter 

in the US. Emissions from several other coal-fired power plants in airsheds that also can affect 

the park are shown in Table 35. 

Considering the U.S. EPA’s Air Quality Index (AQI), air quality in the greater Atlanta metropolitan area was evaluated as only “moderate” for 210 days in 2006 because of ozone and 

particulates, “unhealthy for sensitive groups” (e.g. children, the elderly, and immunocompromised individuals) for 28 days, and unhealthy (all people) for 8 days (Tables 36 and 37). 

As of 2002, Georgia ranked 5th among the states for SO2, 10th in CO2 emissions, and 11th for 

ozone-contributing NOx (top contributor in the US, the Bowen Plant) (Southern Alliance For 

Clean Energy; http://www.cleanenergy.org/ inYourState / subpage.cfm?ID=16). The top two 

contributors of CO2 emissions in the U.S. are the Scherer and Bowen Plants; the Bowen Plant 

also is the number-one contributor of SO2 emissions and 14th-highest contributor of NOx

emissions. By 2005, the Bowen Plant was to be equipped with two scrubbers to help control SO2

emissions (Southern Alliance for Clean Energy; website above). By 2013, the Scherer Plant 

plans to complete an air quality control system that reportedly will remove more than 80% of the 

mercury, particulates, sulfur dioxide and nitrous oxides from emissions (base, emissions in 

2000). While these estimated reductions would be significant, the remainder still would represent 

a major source of air quality degradation affecting the park. 

Acid deposition can adversely affect or kill aquatic life and harm human health (Abelson 1987, 

Herlihy et al. 1991, Baker and Christensen 1992), and can act synergistically with ozone to harm 

human health as well (Abelson 1987). The major pollutants from coal-fired power plants, 

including those involved in acid deposition (SO2, mostly from coal-fired power plants, and NOx

from coal-fired power plants, car exhausts and other sources) can be transported long distances 

across airsheds (Schwela 2000). There are four acid deposition sites in Georgia, including three 

in north Georgia (Summer- Dawsonville, and Hiawassee) and one in central eastern Georgia 

(McDuffie County). The four sites monitor acid deposition weekly, and the data show a 

significant increasing trend for acid deposition in north Georgia (Figure 30). 

Surface Water Supplies: Drinking Water Versus Ecological Needs 

Freshwater ecosystems have been evaluated as among the most imperiled of natural environments worldwide, due to human appropriation of freshwater (Gleick 2006). The Chattahoochee 

River is the most heavily used water resource in Georgia (USGS 2008). The river watershed 

above Atlanta is the smallest drainage area in the U.S. that provides a major portion of the water 

supply for a major metropolitan area. The Chattahoochee supplies more than 70% of the 

drinking water for the greater metropolitan Atlanta area, already more than 450 mgd by ~2000 

(Kunkle and Vana-Miller 2000). River water is also used for industrial supplies, irrigation, 

power generation, navigation and recreation. 
109 

Figure 30. Statewide acid deposition trends (1982-2006; from GA DNR 2007b). 

Table 36. U.S. EPA’s Air Quality Index (AQI) criteria (modified from GA DNR 2007b). 

Maximum Pollutant Concentration 

PM2.5 

(24hr) 

μg/m3

PM10 

(24hr) 

μg/m3

SO2 

(24hr) 

ppm 

O3 

(8hr) 

ppm 

CO 

(8hr) 

ppm 

NO2 

(1 hr) 

ppm 

AQI 

Value 

Descriptor 

(color-coded) EPA Health Advisory 

< 15.4 < 54 < 0.034 < 0.064 < 4.4 None 0-50 GOOD Air quality satisfactory; little or 

no risk from air pollution 

15.5 - 

40.4 

55-

154 

0.035 - 

0.144 

0.065 - 

0.084 

4.5 - 

9.4 None 51 - 100 MODERATE 

Air quality acceptable, but for 

some pollutants there may be 

a moderate health concern for 

a small number of unusually 

sensitive people 

40.5 - 

65.4 

155 - 

254 

0.145 - 

0.224 

0.085 - 

0.104 

9.5 - 

12.4 None 101 - 150 

UNHEALTY 

for Sensitive 

Groups 

Sensitive groups (people with 

lung or heart disease) are at 

greater risk from exposure to 

particulate pollution, ozone 

65.5 - 

150.4 

255 - 

354 

0.225 - 

0.304 

0.105 - 

0.124 

12.5 

- 

15.4 

None 151 - 200 UNHEALTHY 

Everyone may begin to 

sustain health effects; 

members of sensitive groups 

may experience more serious 

health impacts 

150.5 - 

250.4 

355 - 

424 

0.305 - 

0.604 

0.125 - 

0.374 

15.5 

- 

30.4 

0.65 - 

1.24 201 - 300 VERY 

UNHEALTHY 

AQI values trigger a health 

alert; everyone sustain more 

serious health effects. If 

related to high ozone, If 

related to high ozone, 

restricted to morning or late 

evening to minimize exposure 

250.5 - 

500.4 

425 - 

604 

0.605 - 

1.004 None 

30.5 

- 

50.4 

1.25 - 

2.04 301 - 500 HAZARDOUS 

AQI values over 300 trigger 

health warnings of emergency 

conditions; the entire populace 

is more likely to be affected 
110 

Table 37. U.S. EPA air quality index (AQI) for the Atlanta metropolitan area in 2006 (pollutants monitored 

– O3, SO2, CO, NO2, PM10, PM2.5). From GA DNR (2007b). 

The Chattahoochee is heavily depended upon for potable water supplies by communities from 

northeastern Georgia downstream to the Apalachicola Bay, Florida (Jordan and Wolf 2006). As 

of 2000, the ARC reported 427 million cubic meters of water use from the Chattahoochee River 

(including Lake Lanier) and tributaries (ARC 2000). As of 2003, inter-basin transfers were 

reported to remove more than 50 mgd from the Chattahoochee River in the park area (ARC 

2003, Johnson et al. 2003). Water pollution, clearly a serious problem in the Chattahoochee 

River near Atlanta (Couch et al. 1996), would be expected to worsen if increased consumption of 

water from the river reduces its dilution capacity. 

The MNGWPD was created in 2001 by the Georgia General Assembly (Senate Bill 130) to 

address water resource requirements for the rapidly growing Atlanta metropolitan area while also 

attempting to preserve and protect water resources in 16 counties surrounding metropolitan 

Atlanta, including the five counties in the park area. The District described pollution from urban 

stormwater runoff, treated sewage, and other sources as an increasing, serious challenge in 

efforts to ensure safe drinking water. Water supply service needs are projected to double in the 

Atlanta metropolitan area by 2030, and it has been projected that by 2030, all major sources of 

water supply may be fully tapped (GA DAA 2005). If there is moderate population growth in 

the area, it is projected that water demand by 2030 will be 1,035 million cubic meters per year. 

If high population growth occurs, water demand by 2030 is predicted to be at ~1,190 million 

cubic meters per year. In either case, about 480 million cubic meters of the demand would have 

to come from increased withdrawals from the Chattahoochee and Etowah Rivers (MNGWPD 

2003, Fitzhugh and Richter 2004). After years of negotiation, however, the states have failed to 

reach agreement on a formula for allocating water in the Chattahoochee Basin (Jordan and Wolf 

2006). Recently, in fact, a federal judge fundamentally has questioned whether the City of 

Atlanta has the legal right to depend upon Lake Lanier as its primary source of drinking waters 

(Shelton 2008). 

The park, in its vulnerable location immediately downstream from Lake Lanier, stands to be 

significantly affected by the Tri-State Compact with respect to the amount of water that will be 

available to it. As development and associated water demands continue to increase rapidly, the 

upper Chattahoochee is expected to become increasingly sensitive to droughts. Droughts are a 

key factor in efforts to agree upon water allocations among Georgia, Florida and Alabama (GA 

DAA 2005). 

Groundwater 

Whereas surface water withdrawals in the Chattahoochee basin were projected to be about 460 

mgd by 2005, groundwater withdrawals were projected to be only about 4 mgd (GA DNR 

1998a). Despite the fact that surface water provides most of the supply for municipal and 

Good 

(0 - 50) 

Moderate 

(51 - 100) 

Unhealthy for 

Sensitive Groups 

(101 - 150) 

Unhealthy 

(151 - 200) 

Very Unhealthy 

(201 - 300) 

119 210 28 8 0 
111 

industrial use, reduction in groundwater reserves is occurring in the park area (Lettenmaier et al. 

1999, Baron et al. 2008). 

Soil surveys for Cobb, Fulton, Forsyth, and Gwinnett Counties indicate that most of the soils in 

the area have moderate or severe limitations for septic tank use (National Resources 

Conservation Service 1996). However, the rapidly expanding urbanization of the area 

surrounding the park includes many subdivisions with septic tanks, built outside present 

sewerage districts (Kunkle and Vana-Miller 2000). Groundwater in areas of urban land use is 

also generally more vulnerable to contamination by potentially toxic VOCs, and recharge of 

VOCs to groundwater may be enhanced in urban areas by structures such as recharge basins and 

shallow injection wells (Zogorski et al. 2006). 

Ecosystem Effects 

Urban Pollution and Aquatic Food Webs: During 1998-2003, GA DNR studied fish 

populations in the Chattahoochee River basin, and used an Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI) and 

modified Index of Well-Being (IWB) to identify fish population health as Excellent, Good, Fair, 

Poor, or Very Poor. Long Island Creek and Suwanee Creek, listed as “biota-impacted” streams 

on the state’s 303d list of impaired waters (Table 30), had IBI values indicating that fish 

community health was “Poor” or “Very Poor” (GA DNR 2008e). However, the present 303d list 

appears to miss some if not many impaired aquatic ecosystems in the park. As noted on p.48 and 

in Tables 15 and 16 of this Report, 7 of 8 streams, including Richland, Dick, Suwanee, Crooked, 

Marsh, Rottenwood, and Little Nancy Creek, that were characterized for fish communities in 

1999 or 2005-2007 were evaluated as Poor or Very Poor in ecological condition, including 

consideration of the IBI as well as various ecosystem features. The eighth stream, Johns Creek, 

received the best evaluation which was only a “Fair”. These findings were supported by 

evaluation of macroinvertebrate communities from nine streams near or in the park, using GA 

DNR’s (2007c) GBP. As indicated on p.43 and in Tables 11 and 12 of this Report, Richland, 

Level, Johns, and Crooked Creeks, and Suwanee Creek were all evaluated as “Poor” to “Very 

Poor” in macroinvertebrate community ecological condition; Marsh Creek was evaluated as 

“Fair” to “Poor”; and Dick Creek, Rottenwood Creek, and Little Nancy Creek were evaluated as 

“Fair”. Thus, the highest ranking was only “Fair”. 

As mentioned, a general cause identified for the impairment has been lack of viable habitat due 

to stream sedimentation (GA DNR 2007a). Fish are at the apex of the stream food webs. Their 

Fair/Poor to Very Poor rankings suggest that urban pollution has caused serious degra-dation and 

loss of biodiversity for the park’s aquatic flora and fauna in other trophic levels, as well. The 

stream and wetland food webs likely are also affected by pathogenic microbes whose presence is 

indicated, to some extent, by high fecal coliform bacteria densities, and by toxic substances from 

urban runoff. A telling sign is the success of the exotic invasive fish species, the red shiner. 

This species is common in Rottenwood Creek in the park (Tables 14 and 15), and likely will be 

found to be common or abundant in other park streams as data become available. This species 

thrives under harsh conditions such as low flow, high turbidity, and poor water quality, and it 

aggressively colonizes severely degraded habitats. 

The draft Management Plan for the park (NPS 2008a) identified several key issues of concern in 

continuing efforts to protect natural and cultural resources, in recognition of the fact that the park 

is surrounded by rapidly developing communities and thus is highly sensitive to the many 
112 

impacts of encroaching urbanization and overuse. The Plan states that increased sediment 

loading to surface waters from adjacent land disturbance and development is expected to exacerbate soil/bank erosion in the park’s streams, and to further degrade water quality and adversely 

affect aquatic life. Fish in park waters are also carrying a body burden of toxic substances, based 

upon present fish consumption guidelines posted by GA DNR (2008h; see below). 

Air Pollution and Park Resources: The natural resources of the park are being adversely 

affected by air pollutants such as ozone that can cause foliar injury to terrestrial and emergent 

wetland vegetation (GA DNR 2007b). The Scherer and Bowen Plants are also major emitters of 

mercury and particulates (see http://www.opc.com/TheEnvironment/FutureImprovements

/index.htm). Elevated CO2 emissions in the park area, from the Scherer Plant and other sources, 

are contributing to global warming which is projected to have long-term, significant adverse 

impacts on ecosystems in central Georgia, as across the globe (Penuelas and Filella 2001, United 

Nations IPCC 2007). 

Baron et al. (2008) described climate change as already redefining U.S. national parks, including 

this park, and advised park managers to begin to include climate change considerations into all 

activities and plans. To increase resilience of the natural biota, Baron et al. (2008) recommended 

reducing habitat fragmentation and loss, invasive species, and pollution; protecting important 

ecosystem and physical features; restoring damaged systems and natural processes; and reducing 

the risks of catastrophic loss through establishing refugia, relocating valued species, replicating 

populations and habitats, and attempting to maintain representative examples of beneficial 

species populations. The extent to which any of this can be done for this park is unclear, given 

the major urbanization that surrounds it. Pervasive, chronic damage to the park’s natural 

resources from air as well as water pollution, over the past decades and projected to increase, is a 

major concern.

Invasive/Exotic and Nuisance Species: Invasive/exotic and nuisance species are an 

increasing concern for this park. One of the 14 Park Units is included in the NPS Southeast Coast 

Network’s Exotic Plant Management module that is being managed by Cumberland Island 

National Seashore (DeVivo 2006). Although numerous invasive/exotic species are thriving in 

the park, little is known about the present status of their impacts on native terrestrial flora and 

fauna, and information is also mostly lacking about the extent to which exotic aquatic species 

threaten the park’s surface waters and wetlands. Large floating mats of parrotfeather 

watermilfoil have been identified as a concern in some Park Units because of displacement of 

native flora and provision of mosquito breeding habitat (Hay and Parker 2003). 

Human Health Issues 

The high fecal coliform concentrations that commonly characterize about three-fourths of the 

park’s surface waters (Sections I-III) indicate degraded conditions as well as the potential 

presence of pathogenic microbes that can cause hepatitis, gastroenteritis, gangrene, dysentery, 

ear infections, and other human illness (2008a). These waters sometimes contain fecal coliform 

levels that are unacceptable for human health safety during water-contact recreational activities 

(2008a) (Plate 24). Moreover, as an important, renewable source of drinking water, the health of 

the Chattahoochee River is a serious concern to millions of people both in the Atlanta 

metropolitan area and downstream from it to the Apalachicola Bay, Florida. 
113 

Plate 24. Sign posted by the NPS, warning of human health hazard from high fecal coliform bacteria in 

the Chattahoochee River in the Park. Photo by the NPS in 2001 (available at 

http://ga2.er.usgs.gov/bacteria/SummaryAll.cfm).

Fish in the Chattahoochee River were sampled in 1995 by GA DNR-EPD for 43 parameters 

including pesticides, herbicides, PCBS, and various other toxic organic substances. Of the 43 

parameters, levels of Hg, PCBs, and chlordane above those recommended by the U.S. EPA and 

the State of Georgia for fish consumption were measured in fish from some locations of the park 

(Kunkle and Vana-Miller 2000). The most recent fish consumption guidelines (GA DNR 2008h) 

indicate an ongoing problem: people are advised to consume no more than one meal per week of 

largemouth bass taken from the river segments from Buford Dam to Morgan Falls Dam because 

of mercury contamination. Restrictions are not presently advised for consumption of common 

carp, brown trout, rainbow trout, or yellow perch. For fish taken from river segments extending 

from Morgan Falls Dam to Peachtree Creek, GA DNR (2008h) advises eating no more than one 

meal per week of jumprock sucker because of mercury contamination, and no more than one 

meal per month of common carp because of PCB contamination. Restrictions are not presently 

advised for largemouth bass below Morgan Falls Dam, or for brown trout or bluegill sunfish. 

There is strong potential for adverse chronic impacts of ozone and PM2.5 air pollutants on the 

health of park staff and frequent visitors. As of 2004, the State of Georgia ranked 11th in the 

nation for total deaths, 11th for hospitalizations, and 11th for heart attacks related to fineparticulate pollution from coal-fired power plants (American Lung Association 2004; Southern 

Alliance for Clean Air 2004, at http://www.cleanenergy.org/inYourState/subpage.cfm?ID=16). 

Air pollution is also contributing to high incidence of asthma for children in the area (Clean Air 

Task Force 2002). As mentioned, air quality in the greater Atlanta metropolitan area was 

evaluated as only “moderate” for 210 days in 2006 because of ozone and particulates, “unhealthy 
114 

for sensitive groups” (e.g. children, the elderly, and immunocompromised individuals) for 28 

days, and unhealthy (all people) for 8 days (Tables 36 and 37). Elevated levels of these fine 

particles have been linked to increased illness and premature death from heart and lung disorders 

such as asthma and chronic bronchitis. NOx also react with volatile organic compounds to form 

ozone which, as mentioned, causes lung inflammation, asthma, emphysema, and increased 

morbidity/ mortality risks in humans. Acid precipitation causes and aggravates many human 

respiratory diseases, and is estimated to be the third largest cause of lung disease in the U.S. 

(after smoking and indoor radon). Elevated CO2 emissions in the greater Atlanta metropolitan 

area, from the Scherer and Bowen Plants and other sources, are contributing to global warming 

which is projected to have long-term, significant repercussions for adverse human health impacts 

in the park and the surrounding region (e.g. Cifuentes et al. 2001, Patz et al. 2005). 

Other Issues of Concern 

Population Growth and Land Use Changes 

The expanding Atlanta Metropolitan Area is adding more than 100,000 new residents per 

year(e.g. April 2006 - April 2007; ARC 2007). About 4.5 million people now reside there – a 

population larger than 24 states, according to 2006 U.S. Census estimates. The counties 

surrounding the park are among the fastest growing in the nation (MNGWPD 2008, NPS 2008a). 

It has been estimated that by 2035, nearly seven million people will reside in the Metropolitan 

North Georgia Water Planning District (Figure 31), which includes the park area; and 2,206,000 

people will be employed in the Atlanta metropolitan area, representing growth of 40% over the 

2000 employment base (ARC 2001, CH2MHill 2003, MNGWPD 2008). Major construction of 

industrial, commercial, and housing developments has occurred over the past two decades and 

continues to rapidly expand close to this narrow, linear park. By 2030, it is predicted that 75% 

of the land use in the upper Chattahoochee basin will be urban/residential; agricultural use will 

decline by 75% and undeveloped lands will decline by 50%, while urban land use will increase 

by 33% and residential land use almost double (CH2MHill 2003, MNGWPD 2008; Figure 32). 

Figure 31. Historical population growth in the Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District, which 

includes the study area (see Figure 32), from 1980 to (projected) 2035. Sources for these data were the 

U.S. Census Bureau (1980-2000) and the Atlanta Regional Commission (2010-2035), as given in 

MNGWPD (2008). 
115 

Figure 32. Projected land use changes in the upper Chattahoochee River basin by 2030. From CH2MHill 

(2003). 

Physical Impacts From Activities in the Park 

The new Management Plan (draft, 2008x) addresses major concerns about projected major 

increased levels and types of visitor use. Key questions considered were: 

 How can the park accommodate increasing numbers of visitors while continuing to 

provide effective infrastructure such as water and wastewater facilities, roads, and 

parking areas?; and 

 How can the park provide effective educational and interpretive programs for increasing 

numbers of visitors? 

A major concern is that encroaching development is leading to creation, by people in adjacent 

residential areas, of numerous informal, unmaintained trails in the park (Plate 25). These “social 

trails” disturb native vegetation and can cause soil erosion, especially in more steeply sloped 

areas (NPS 2008a). A second concern is that the construction and operation of the facilities 

(drinking water, wastewater) and infrastructure (roads, parking areas) needed to accommodate 

projected increased numbers of visitors will adversely affect the park’s natural resources. 
116 

Plate 25. Informal, unmaintained “social trail” immediately adjacent to the park, also showing a home 

from an adjacent low-density housing development. Photo by E. Morris, 2008.

There have been problems with lack of parking for park visitors since the 1990s (NPS 2004b). 

Limited parking facilities and an abundance of adjacent residential neighborhoods have led many 

visitors to walk or bicycle to the park. Informal access or social trails are especially prevalent 

around Island Ford, McGinnis Ferry, Johnson Ferry, Vickery Creek, and Palisades (NPS 2004b). 

Transit service is not provided within the park, and pedestrian/bicycle/vehicle conflicts have 

continued to be a problem in Park Units such as Island Ford and Jones Bridge. The general 

public has expressed concern about conflicts between local private property owners and park-on 

acquisitions, and has identified a need for improved traffic and safety and improved parking and 

roads to access the park (NPS 2004b). Crowding problems with multi-users extend to the 

Chattahoochee River itself: For example, as recreation use continues to increase along the river, 

the potential is expected to increase for sand and gravel mining to cause aesthetic or safety 

concerns, or otherwise conflict with recreational activities (NPS 1989). Related other stressors to 

the park’s natural and historic resources include heavy use and erosion of hiking trails (e.g. Plate 

26). 
117 

Plate 26. Erosion of a park path near Willeo Creek. Photo by E. Morris, 2008.

Some park areas have additional protection from physical disturbance. For example, park lands 

and waters north of Highway 120 (Abbotts Bridge Road) and all parklands acquired since 19 

December 1999 are closed to pets to help protect wildlife. A notable exception is that horses are 

allowed to used designated equestrian trails on the Forsyth County side of the Bowmans Island 

Unit (NPS 2008a). Acquisition for horses is impractical elsewhere in the park, considering the 

limited trail mileage and steep sections that would be highly vulnerable to erosion. Other 

precautions are taken to protect park wildlife, since the Park Units are basically green islands in 

an urban setting. The park is closed to viewing of wildlife with artificial lights. It is also 

prohibited to take wildlife from the park, which helps to discourage poaching. Motor boats are 

not allowed at Island Ford and Sibley Ponds, which are small ponds that are used for 

environmental education programs and fishing. The area surrounding the Ivy Mill Ruins, a 

fragile site that is eligible for the National Register of Historic Places, is closed to visitors 

because they could not be accommodated without permanent damage to the resources (NPS 

2008a). 

Other Continuous Land Issues and Impacts 

A major recreational value that has been expressed by visitors is “the desire to achieve a sense of 

solitude within natural areas of the park” (NPS 2008a). Noise pollution from the high-volume 

traffic and other activities of the surrounding Atlanta metropolitan area has been identified as a 

major concern affecting park wildlife and visitors (NPS 2008a). The “endless days” 

phenomenon created by considerable light pollution is an accompanying concern. Illicit 
118 

dumping and other inputs of trash and refuse are a chronic problem for many areas of the park 

(NPS 2008a), and spillover crime from the Atlanta metropolitan area is another ongoing concern. 

Synopsis of Stressors to the Park 

The present and potential stressors that are affecting or may affect the park are summarized in 

Table 38. Overwhelmingly, the most pressing stress on the natural resources of the park is from 

adjacent urbanization and the multitude of water quality and air quality impacts associated with 

the voracious, rapidly expanding and massive development of the greater Atlanta metropolitan 

area. The amount of stormwater runoff has increased dramatically over the past 30 years in this 

urbanizing area (GA DAA 2005). Excessive nutrients, heavy metals, PCBs, and very likely 

other toxic contaminants such as pesticides are adversely affecting the park’s streams. Microbial 

pathogens are a pervasive problem in most Park Units, indicated by high fecal coliforms, and 

they may be adversely affecting fish and other aquatic life as well as posing a threat to human 

health. The park provides an extreme example of a situation that typifies many other parks in the 

SECN (Byrne 2004), with surface waters downstream from 303(d)-listed degraded waters 

outside NPS jurisdiction. A total of 15 of 18 major tributaries along the 48-mile segment of the 

Chattahoochee River are degraded, most of them throughout their entire length, and about twothirds of the river segment in the park area is degraded as well. 

Over the past several years park visitation has incrementally decreased, despite Atlanta’s recordbreaking population growth (NPS 2004b). A suspected cause is public perceptions about 

degraded water quality and related health issues (NPS 2004b). As mentioned, in 2000 the 

Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint River basin was listed in the top ten most endangered 

American rivers (see http://www.americanrivers.org/site/PageServer?pagename=AR7_MER). 

The increasing demands on water supplies from human population growth also pose an 

increasing threat to surface and groundwater resources in the park over the coming decades. 

Surface water quality and aquatic communities are sustaining impacts from air pollution 

including acidification, mercury and other heavy metals etc. The seasonal or lower frequency of 

sampling to evaluate water quality is insufficient to detect the spikes in these pollutants that are 

known to occur depending upon weather patterns. Thus, for example, available pH data are 

inadequate to evaluate the extent to which acid spates (sudden influxes of highly acidic water at 

the beginning of storm events) are affecting the aquatic food webs (e.g. Morris et al. 1989). Air 

pollution likely is also adversely affecting terrestrial vegetation, for example, as foliar damage 

from high ozone in the park area. In addition, the high ozone and PM2.5 levels in the park airshed 

pose a threat to the health of park staff and frequent visitors. 
119 

Table 38. Present-day and potential stressors that are affecting or may affect the park’s natural 

resources (ND = no data or insufficient data to make judgment; NA = not applicable; NP = no problem; EP 

= existing problem; PP = pending problem). 

Stressor Surface

Waters

Groundwater Airshed Forest Human

Health

Acidification EP ND EP EP EP 

Algal blooms EP NA NA NA ND 

Encroaching urbanization* EP EP EP EP EP 

Erosion (including dust) EP ND EP EP EP 

Excessive nutrients** EP ND EP EP NP 

Exotic invasive species EP NA ND EP ND 

Fecal bacteria, other microbial 

pathogens 

EP ND NA ND EP 

Habitat disruption EP EP NA EP EP 

Highway construction EP ND EP EP EP* 

Hypoxia EP NA NA NA NP 

Light pollution ND NA NA ND ND 

Metals contamination EP ND ND ND EP 

Noise pollution ND NA NA EP EP 

Ozone pollution ND NA EP EP EP 

Particulate matter pollution EP EP EP EP EP 

Other toxic substances EP EP EP ND ND 

Sedimentation EP ND EP NA EP 

Temperature alteration below Buford 

Dam 

EP NA NA NA NA 

Trash/refuse pollution EP ND NA EP ND 

Urban island heat effects EP ND EP ND EP 

Water demand EP PP NA ND EP/PP 

 * Will increase likelihood of collisions with wildlife. 

 ** Is adding more air pollution because of car exhausts. 

A diverse group of invasive/exotic and nuisance plant and animal species threatens the natural 

resources of the park. In addition to known significant effects of exotic species on land 

resources, increasing urbanization surrounding the park may be promoting an increase in 

nuisance native or invasive species such as foxes, coyotes and deer, and associated negative 

effects. Aside from species lists, however, little is known about aquatic impacts from invasive/ 

exotic species. 

Over the past ~decade, the size of floodplains has been increasing in the metropolitan Atlanta 

area because of increased stormwater runoff, resulting in severe stream bank erosion, loss of land 

and vegetation, and other damage (see http://apps.atlantaga.gov/citydir/dpcd/cdp/section

_1121291920390.html_). In addition, the area is sustaining an “urban heat island” effect because 

of increased temperatures from the large amount of impervious area (see above website; also, 

Paul and Meyers 2001, Center for Watershed Protection 2003).
120 

Illicit dumping and other inputs of trash and refuge are a major problem in the park area (e.g. 

Plate 15). In 2000, for example, the city of Atlanta was required by a federal consent order to 

remove 568 tons of trash, including seven cars, from tributaries to the Chattahoochee (Georgia 

River Network; see http://www.garivers.org/pdf_files/river_basin_facts/chattahoochee.pdf). 

Other concerns are the numerous social trails that disturb native vegetation and cause soil 

erosion, potential impacts on natural resources of the park from continued construction and 

operation of facilities and infrastructure needed to accommodate visitors, noise and light pollution from surrounding urban activities, and spillover crime from the Atlanta metropolitan area. 
121 

Recommendations To Address Impairments, Potential 

Impacts, and Undocumented Water Bodies 

General Comments 

The Chattahoochee River National Recreation Area was established to protect and preserve the 

values of the river from “development and other uses that would otherwise impair or destroy 

them...for the public benefit and enjoyment” (NPS 2008a). Regardless, clearly this park is under 

siege from the relentless urbanization that surrounds it. 

Within the past decade, the GA DNR has developed various TMDLs for the Chattahoochee 

River and most of its tributaries in the area that includes the park (GA DNR 1998, 2003a,b, 

2007a, 2008a). The TMDLs are supposed to be “platforms for establishing courses of actions to 

restore water quality” (GA DNR 2008a); procedures are to be set in place to track and evaluate 

implementation of corrective management practices and activities. It is imperative that the State 

of Georgia legislature and environmental agency track and ensure the effectiveness of the 

TMDLs for the Chattahoochee River and tributaries affecting the park’s water quality. The 

following additional recommendations can be addressed within NPS jurisdiction. 

Specific Recommendations 

The following major recommendations consider the information from this Report (past ~decade), 

and also revisit the recommendations put forth in the Chattahoochee Water Management Plan of 

2000 (Kunkle and Vana-Miller 2000) and in NPS (2004a) as a means of assessing progress in 

protecting the park’s natural resources. Certain of the recommendations from about a decade 

ago have been addressed here or elsewhere. For example, this Report is accompanied by the 

water quality data available for park surface waters as referenced therein, contained within Excel 

files in electronic format. Thus, it addresses the primary technical assistance recommendation 

made by Kunkle and Vana-Miller (2000), namely, to conduct a more complete inventory and 

analysis of the past ~decade of water quality data available from the counties, state, STORET, 

USGS NWIS, and other sources. In other efforts, since the 2000 Plan’s publication, sewer 

pipeline information has been compiled in GIS maps as a tool to help track pipeline and manhole 

sewage leaks into park waters. The NPS has also been instrumental in helping to develop better 

guidelines for instream sand and gravel mining. In addition, the NPS has worked to evaluate 

land acquisition options from a water resource protection perspective. However, the following 

recommendations from that Plan, germane to this Report, remain to be addressed or should be 

more strongly addressed. Additional recommendations (*) are based upon consideration of the 

compiled data of the past ~decade. 

 A top priority is to conduct a one-year sampling program in park surface waters including 

the Chattahoochee River and its major tributaries with biweekly or, at a minimum, 

monthly sampling frequency. At least two stations in each of the four sections of the 

park and at least one station on each tributary should be sampled for, at a minimum, 

water temperature, pH, dissolved oxygen, suspended solids, turbidity, nutrients (TN, TP, 

nitrate, ammonium, BOD5), fecal coliform densities, and chlorophyll a concentrations. 

This effort should be repeated at three-year intervals. This program should include 

additional monitoring of representative storm events because they are known to 

contribute most nonpoint source pollution from urban runoff and other sources.* 
122 

 Once per year during an appropriate seasonal timeframe, the fish and macroinvertebrates 

(benthic fauna, aquatic insects) should be assessed at these stations.* 

 Data should be collected at least quarterly on toxic substance concentrations in sediments 

 and fish tissues. Parameters of focus should include, at a minimum, cadmium, copper, 

lead, zinc, mercury, and PCBs.* 

 The NPS developed a bacterial water quality monitoring program, BacteriALERT, to 

help safeguard human health safety in the park’s recreational waters. BacteriALERT 

includes a system that displays water pollution and water quality information, although 

limited to fecal bacteria and turbidity. The program, originally with three stations, is now 

down to two, and three had been inadequate to accomplish the program goal. This 

important program needs to be expanded strategically to include additional stations in 

park waters.* 

 As a fifth top priority, data from the above three recommendations should be used to 

prioritize restoration of degraded areas, and to identify the major actions that will be 

needed.* 

 As a sixth priority, updated economic evaluation is needed of the recreational value of the 

park, including the economic threat of water quality degradation.* 

 Some of the major existing sources of water quality impacts on the park’s aquatic 

resources have been identified in this Report. Inventory of other major sources of water 

pollution, for which computerized information mostly is not available, is needed for 

septic tanks in large-scale subdivisions, new highway projects, numerous new shopping 

centers, and other sources that are being added through the rapid surrounding increase in 

urbanization and urban sprawl. The data should be used to create GIS maps of these 

sources, and these maps can be upgraded to help the NPS track pollution and its impacts 

in park waters. 

 The NPS should confer with the USACE and other agencies to evaluate the effects of the 

Tri-State Water Allocation Formula, once approved and applied, to assess whether the 

allocated flows are sufficient to support recreation and healthy fisheries in the park. 

 The NPS should also work with the USACE to address more effectively the bank 

sloughing problem caused by hydroelevation surge flows. 

 Wetlands in each park unit should be more clearly delineated and described. Large-scale 

as well as more detailed maps are needed, and wetland vegetation should be inventoried. 

 A sampling program is needed to establish present conditions and track exotic/invasive 

species, and assess their impacts on aquatic and wetland resources in the park, so that 

park staff can develop active management strategies to optimize control.* 
123 

 The streams in Park Units nearest the Buford Dam (especially Bowmans Island) should 

be monitored for stream bank erosion from water release activities, and for tree damage. 

 The NPS should assess incidence of foliar injury to park plants from ozone pollution, 

including common wetland bioindicator species such as yellow poplar and American 

elder. More generally, data are needed to assess the extent to which air pollution is 

affecting the park, and to forecast how increasing air pollution from the greater Atlanta 

metropolitan area will affect its waters and other natural resources.* 

 The park should continue to work to strengthen education outreach to teach visitors about 

the importance of greenspaces such as this park in ecosystem sustainability.*

125 

Literature Cited 

Abelson, P. H. 1987. Ozone and acid rain. Science 235:141. 

Allan, J. D. 1995. Stream ecology. Chapman and Hall, London, UK. 

American Public Health Association (APHA), American Water Works Association and Water 

Environment Federation. 1992. Standard methods for the examination of water and 

wastewater, 18th ed. APHA, Washington, DC. 

Atlanta Regional Commission (ARC). 1992a. Chattahoochee River corridor map. ARC, Atlanta, 

GA. 

Atlanta Regional Commission (ARC). 1992b. Chattahoochee watershed protection study: Buford 

Creek to Peachtree Creek. ARC, Atlanta, GA. 

Atlanta Regional Commission (ARC). 2000. Atlanta Regional Water Supply Plan update, August 

2000. ARC, Atlanta, GA. 

Atlanta Regional Commission (ARC). 2001. Improvement program handbook for the FY 2002-

2004. ARC, Atlanta, GA. 

Atlanta Regional Commission (ARC). 2003. Water supply and water conservation management 

plan. P:\2317-002\Task 13\Final Report, September. ARC, Atlanta, GA. 

Atlanta Regional Commission (ARC). 2007. 2007 Atlanta region population. ARC, Atlanta, GA. 

Baeyens, W., R. Ebinghaus, and O. Vasiliev (eds.). 1996. Global and regional mercury cycle: 

sources, fluxes and mass balances. Kluwer Academic Publishers, The Netherlands. 

Baker, J. P. and S. W. Christensen. 1992. Effects of acidification on biological communities, 

Chapter 4 in D. F. Charles, editors. Acidic deposition and aquatic ecosystems - regional case 

studies. Springer-Verlag, New York, NY. 

Barbour, M. T., K. J. Gerrisen, B. D. Snyder, and J. B. Stribling. 1999. Rapid bioassessment 

protocols for use in streams and wadeable Rivers: Benthic macroinvertebrates and fish, 

second edition. Report EPA 841-B-99-002. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Office of 

Water; Washington DC. 

Baron, J. S., C. D. Allen, E. Fleishman, D. McKenzie, L. Meyerson, J. Oropeza, and N. 

Stephenson. 2008. National Parks, Chapter 4. In: Julius, S. H. and West, J. M. (eds.), 

Preliminary review of adaptation options for climate-sensitive ecosystems and resources. 

Final Report, Synthesis and Assessment Product SAP4.4. U.S. Climate Change Science 

Program and the Subcommittee on Global Change Research, Washington, DC. 

Brim Box, J. and J.D. Williams. 2000. Unionid mollusks of the Apalachicola Basin in Alabama, 

Florida, and Georgia. Bulletin of the Alabama Museum of Natural History 21: 143. 
126 

Burch, J. B. 1975. Freshwater unionacean clams (Mollusca: Pelecypoda) of North America. 

Revised Editions Malacalogical Publications. Hamburg, Michigan. 204 pp. 

Burkholder, J. M. 2002. Cyanobacteria. Pages 952-982 in Bitton, J., editor. Encyclopedia of 

environmental microbiology. Wiley Publishers, New York, NY. 

Byrne, M. W. 2004. Appendix 8 – Water resources in the Southeast Coast Network. In: Vital 

signs monitoring in the Southeast Coast Inventory and Monitoring Network - Phase III 

(draft) Report. National Park Service, Southeast Coast Network, Atlanta, GA. 

Carter, R. W. and S. M. Herrick. 1951. Water resources of the Atlanta metropolitan area. 

Geological Survey Circular 148. USGS, Atlanta, GA.

CCR Environmental, Inc. 2007. Biological monitoring report – Fulton County Watershed 

Assessment, Fulton County, GA. Prepared for R2T, Inc., Alpharetta, GA. 

Cederstrom, D. H., E. H. Boswell, and G. R. Tarver. 1979. Summary appraisals of the nation’s 

ground-water resources – south Atlantic-Gulf region. USGS Professional Paper 813-0, 

Washington, DC. 

Center for Watershed Protection. 2003. Impacts of impervious cover on aquatic systems. 

Watershed Protection Research Monograph 1. Center for Watershed Protection: Ellicott City, 

MD.

Chafin, L. G. 1990. Garrow & Associates, Inc. 1990. A protected species and wetlands overview 

of the Chattahoochee River corridor from I- 285 to Sope Creek, Cobb and Fulton Counties, 

Georgia. Garrow & Associates, Inc. - Devcon Design Group, Inc., Atlanta, GA. 

Chapman, M. J. and M. Peck. 1997. Ground-water resources of the Upper Chattahoochee River 

Basin in Georgia – Subarea 1 of the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint and Alabama-CoosaTallapoosa River Basins. Open-File Report 96-363. USGS, Atlanta, GA.

Choate, J. R., J. K. Jones Jr., and C. Jones. 1994. Handbook of mammals of the south-central 

states. Louisiana State University Press, Baton Rouge, LA. 

CH2MHill. 2000. Forsyth County community watershed assessment and management plan. 

CH2MHill, Atlanta, GA. 

 CH2MHill. 2003. District-wide watershed management plan - 2030. Prepared for the 

Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District. CH2MHill, Atlanta, GA. Available at: 

http://www.northgeorgiawater.com/files/ (last accessed October 2008). 

CH2MHill. 2007. Biological monitoring year 3. Technical Memorandum prepared for the 

Gwinnett County Department of Water Resources, Lawrenceville, GA. 

CH2MHill. 2008a. Annual biological monitoring report. Prepared for the Gwinnett County 

Department of Water Resources, Lawrenceville, GA. 
127 

CH2MHill. 2008b. Forsyth County annual report: watershed protection plan - 2008. Submitted 

to GA DNR EPD, Atlanta, GA. 

Cifuentes, L., V. H. Borja-Aburto, N. Gouveia, G. Thurston, and D.L. Davis. 2001. Hidden health 

benefits of greenhouse gas mitigation. Science 293: 1257-1259. 

Clark, W. Z. and A. C. Zisa. 1976. Physiographic map of Georgia: Georgia Geological Survey 

SM-4, reprinted 1988, scale 1:2,000,000. 

Clarke, J. S. and R. R. Pierce. 1985, Georgia ground-water resources. Pages 179-184 in: U.S. 

Geological Survey - National Water Summary, 1984. USGS Water-Supply Paper 2275, 

USGS, Reston, VA. 

Clarke, S. R. 1995. Impacts of southern pine beetles in special management areas. Pages 93-98 in 

Eskew, L. G., editor. Forest health through silvaculture, proceedings of the 1995 National 

Silvacultural Workshop, 8–11 May, Mescalero, New Mexico. General Technical Report RMGTR-267. Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Forest Service, USDA, 

Fort Collins, CO. 

Clean Air Task Force. 2002. Children at risk – how air pollution from power plants threatens the 

health of America’s children. Clean Air Task Force, Boston, MA. Available at: 

www.cleartheair.org. 

Cook, C. D. K. 1993. Origin, autecology, and spread of some of the world’s most troublesome 

aquatic weeds. Pages 31-38 in Pieterse, A. H. and K. J. Murphy, editors. Aquatic weeds – 

the ecology and management of nuisance aquatic vegetation. Oxford Science Publications, 

Oxford University Press, Oxford, United Kingdom. 

Cooper, R. J. 2000. Partners in flight southern piedmont bird conservation plan (Physiographic 

Area 11). University of Georgia, Athens, GA. 

Couch, C.A. 1993. Environmental setting of the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint River Basin. 

In: Hatcher, K. J., editor. National Water Quality Assessment (NAWQA) Program, 

Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint River Basin. Proceedings of the 1993 Georgia Water 

Resources Conference. University of Georgia, Athens, GA. 

Couch, C. A., J. C. DeVivo and B. J. Freeman. 1995. What fish live in the streams of 

metropolitan Atlanta? Fact Sheet FS-091-95. USGS, Atlanta, GA. 

Couch, C. A., E. H. Hopkins, and P. S. Hardy. 1996. Influences of environmental settings on 

aquatic ecosystems in the Apalachicola–Chattahoochee– Flint River Basin. United States 

Geological Survey National Water- Quality Assessment Program. Water-Resources 

Investigation Report 95-4278. USGS, Reston, VA. 

Counts, C. L. III. 1991. Corbicula (Bivalvia: Corbiculidae). Tryonia: miscellaneous publications 

of the Department of Malacology, No. 21. The Academy of Natural Sciences of 

Philadelphia., Philadelphia, PA, 134pp. 
128 

Cressler, C. W., C. J. Thermond, and W. G. Hester. 1983. Ground water in the greater Atlanta 

region, Georgia. Information Circular 63. GA DNR-EPD, Atlanta, GA.

DeVivo, J. C. 1995. Impact of introduced red shiners, Cyprinella lutrensis, on stream fishes near 

Atlanta, Georgia. Pages 95-98 in: Hatcher, K., editor. Georgia Water Resources Conference. 

University of Georgia, Athens, GA. 

DeVivo, J. C. 1996. Fish assemblages as indicators of water quality within the AppalachicolaChattahoochee-Flint (ACF) River basin. M.S. thesis, University of Georgia, Athens, GA.

DeVivo, J.C. 2006. Appendix 5 – Summary of natural resource issues at Southeast Coast 

Network Parks. In: Vital signs monitoring in the Southeast Coast Inventory & Monitoring 

Network - Phase III report. Southeast Coast Network, NPS, Atlanta, GA. 

Dunbar, K. 2007. Stream and river monitoring in Georgia – Upper Altamaha Practicum 

(memorandum dated 9 March). Upper Altamaha Initiative, University of Georgia, Athens, 

GA. 

Eggert, S. L. 2005. An analysis of a 7-year macroinvertebrate data set for the Upper 

Chattahoochee River. Prepared for the Chattahoochee River National Recreation Area. 

Department of Entomology, University of Georgia, Athens, GA. 

Ellis, J. C., and C. F. Gilbert. 1980. How to handle 'less-than' data when forming summaries. 

Water Research Centre Enquiry Report ER 764. Water Research Centre, Medmenham, 

United Kingdom. 

Fitzhugh, T. W. and B. D. Richter. 2004. Quenching urban thirst: Growing cities and their 

impacts on freshwater ecosystems. BioScience 54: 741-754. 

Frick, E. A. 1997. Surface-water and shallow ground-water quality in the vicinity of 

metropolitan Atlanta, upper Chattahoochee River basin, Georgia, 1992-1995. Pages 44-48 

in: Hatcher, K. J., editor. 1997. National Water Quality Assessment (NAWQA) Program, 

Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint River Basin, Georgia, Florida, and Alabama. Proceedings, 

1997 Georgia Water Resources Conference, USGS, Atlanta, GA. 

Frick, E. A., D. J. Hippe, G. R. Buell, C. A. Couch, E. H. Hopkins, D. J. Wangsness, and J. W. 

Garrett. 1998. Water quality in the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint River basin, Georgia, 

Alabama, and Florida, 1992-95. Circular 1164. USGS, Reston, VA. 

Georgia Department of Audits and Accounts (GA DAA). 2005. Georgia’s water-related 

activities. Report 05-12. GA DAA, Atlanta, GA. 

Georgia State Climatology Office. 2007. Available from http://climate.engr.uga.edu/ (last 

accessed July 2008). 

Georgia Department of Natural Resources (GA DNR). 1966. A biological study of Sope Creek, 

Cobb County, Georgia. GA DNR-EPD, Atlanta, GA. 
129 

Georgia Department of Natural Resources (GA DNR). 1973. Sope Creek water quality 

investigation. GA DNR, Atlanta, GA. 

Georgia Department of Natural Resources (GA DNR). 1998a. Chattahoochee River basin 

management plan. GA DNR EPD, Atlanta, GA. Available from: 

http://www.gaepd.org/Documents/contact_epd.html (last accessed July 2008). 

Georgia Department of Natural Resources (GA DNR). 1998b. Fecal coliform TMDL 

development – James Creek Watershed, Chattahoochee River basin. 

Georgia Department of Natural Resources (GA DNR). 2000a. Combined databases of landfills in 

Georgia: historic and current through 1999. Database and Documentation Report 01-10. 

Geological Survey Branch, GA DNR Environmental Protection Division (EPD), Atlanta, 

GA. Available from: http://www.gaepd.org/Documents/gismenu.html (last accessed April 

2009). 

Georgia Department of Natural Resources (GA DNR). 2000b. Land application sites (LAS) 

within Georgia, permitted through 31 December 1999. Database and Documentation Report 

00-39. Geologic Survey Branch, GA DNR Environmental Protection Division (EPD), 

Atlanta, GA. Available from: http://www.gaepd.org/Documents/gismenu.html (last accessed 

April 2009). 

Georgia Department of Natural Resources (GA DNR). 2003a. Total maximum daily load 

evaluation for seventy-nine stream segments in the Chattahoochee River basin for fecal 

coliform. GA DNR, Atlanta, GA. 

Georgia Department of Natural Resources. 2003b. Total maximum daily load evaluation for 

seven segments of the Chattahoochee River in the Chattahoochee River basin (PCBs in fish 

tissue). GA DNR, Atlanta, GA. 

Georgia Department of Natural Resources (GA DNR). 2004. Draft: Standard operating 

procedures – freshwater macroinvertebrate biological assessment. GA DNR EPD, Atlanta, 

GA. 

Georgia Department of Natural Resources (GA DNR). 2005. Standard operating procedures for 

conducting biomonitoring on fish communities in wadeable streams of Georgia. GADNR 

WRD - Fisheries Management Section, Atlanta, GA. 

Georgia Department of Natural Resources. 2007a. Draft total maximum daily load evaluation 

for twenty-five stream segments in the Chattahoochee River basin for sediment (biota 

impacted). GA DNR, Atlanta, GA. 

Georgia Department of Natural Resources (GA DNR). 2007b. 2006 ambient air surveillance 

report – 2005-2006 risk assessment discussion. Toxic Network. EPD, Air Protection Branch, 

GA DNR, Atlanta, GA, 125 pp. 
130 

Georgia Department of Natural Resources (GA DNR). 2007c. Macroinvertebrate biological 

assessment of wadeable streams in Georgia – standard operating procedures. GA DNR-EPD, 

Watershed Protection Branch, Atlanta, GA. 

Georgia Department of Natural Resources. 2007d. Standard operating procedures for conducting 

biomonitoring on fish communities in wadeable streams in Georgia. GA DNR-WRD, 

Atlanta, GA. 

Georgia Department of Natural Resources. 2007e. District-wide watershed management plan 

standards and methodologies for surface water quality monitoring. GA DNR Environmental 

Protection Division (EPD), Atlanta, GA. Available from: 

http://www.northgeorgiawater.org/files/MNGWPD_StandardsMethodologies_March2007a.pdf (last 

accessed April 2009). 

Georgia Department of Natural Resources (GA DNR). 2008a. Total maximum daily load 

evaluation for nine stream segments in the Chattahoochee River basin for fecal coliform. GA 

DNR, Atlanta, GA. 

Georgia Department of Natural Resources (GA DNR). 2008b. Protected plant species in Georgia 

- Amended. #391-4-10.-09. Available from: http://www.georgiawildlife.com/content/ 

protectedplants.asp (last accessed September 2008). 

Georgia Department of Natural Resources (GA DNR). 2008c. Species of concern. Available 

from: http://www.georgiawildlife.org/rareorendangeredspecies_conservation.aspx (last 

accessed October 2008). 

Georgia Department of Natural Resources (GA DNR). 2008d. Water quality standards in 

Georgia 2006-2007. GA DNR Environmental Protection Division, Atlanta, GA. 

Georgia Department of Natural Resources (GA DNR). 2008e. Georgia 2008 305(b)/303(d) 

report. GA DNR – Environmental Protection Division (EPD), Atlanta, GA.

Georgia Department of Natural Resources (GA DNR). 2008f. DRAFT national pollutant 

discharge elimination system (NPDES) sites within Georgia, permitted through May 2008. 

Geological Survey Branch and Watershed Protection Branch. GA DNR, Atlanta, GA. 

Georgia Department of Natural Resources (GA DNR). 2008g. Water quality in Georgia 2006-

2007. Appendix A – Waters assessed for compliance with designated use – narrative 

including the 2008 listing assessment methodology and code key for abbreviations: 2008 

rivers and streams [303(d) List]. GA DNR, Atlanta, GA. Available from: 

http://www.gaepd.org/Documents/305b.html (last accessed July 2008). 

Georgia Department of Natural Resources (GA DNR). 2008h. Guidelines for eating fish from 

Georgia Waters – 2008 update. GA DNR, Atlanta, GA. Available from: 

http://www.gaepd.org/Files_PDF/gaenviron/fish_advisory/GADNR_FishConsumptionGuidel

ines_Y2007.pdf (last accessed July 2008). 
131 

Georgia Water Quality Control Board. 1971. Chattahoochee River basin study: Atlanta, GA. 

Unnumbered report. GA DNR – EPD, Atlanta, GA. 

GeoSyntec Consultants. 2006. Resource study report – rare, threatened and endangered species. 

Morgan Falls Project (FERC No. 2237). Prepared for Morgan Falls Hydro of Georgia Power, 

Atlanta, GA. 

Gilbert, R. and R. Reinert. 1978. Fishes in the Buford Dam tailrace, August through December, 

1977. Final Contract Report No. DACW01-77-C-0160, submitted to the USACE, Mobile, 

AL. 

Gleick, P. H. 2006. The world's water 2006-2007: the biennial report on freshwater resources. 

Island Press, Washington, DC. 

Godfrey, R. K. and J. W. Wooten. 1981a. Aquatic and wetland plants of the southeastern United 

States: monocotyledons. University of Georgia Press, Athens, GA. 

Godfrey, R.K. and J.W. Wooten. 1981a. Aquatic and wetland plants of the southeastern United 

States: dicotyledons. University of Georgia Press, Athens, GA. 

Golley, F.B. 1962. Mammals of Georgia. University of Georgia Press, Athens, GA. 

Goodell, J. 2006. Big coal – the dirty secret behind America’s energy future. Houghton Mifflin, 

Boston, MA. 

Hadley, R. F. and E. D. Ongley (editors). 1989. Sediment and the environment. Proceedings of a 

Symposium. Publication No. 184. International Association of Hydrological Sciences, 

Washington, DC. 

Hay, M. E. and J. D. Parker (2003) An inventory of aquatic plants in the Chattahoochee River 

National Recreation Area, Atlanta, Georgia, USA. Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, 

GA. 

Herlihy, A. T., P. R. Kaufmann, and M. E. Mitch. 1991. Stream chemistry in the eastern United 

States. 2. Current sources of acidity in acidic and low acid-neutralizing capacity streams. 

Water Resources Research 27: 629-642. 

Hess , T. B. 1980. An evaluation of the fishery resources of the Chattahoochee River below 

Buford Dam. Final Report, Federal Aid Project F-26. GA DNR – Game and Fish Division, 

Atlanta, GA. 

Hilsenhoff, W. L. 1988. Rapid field assessment of organic pollution with a family-level biotic 

index. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 7: 65-68. 

Johnson, N., C. Krachon, and S. Layman. 2003. Sustainable approaches to evaluating interbasin 

water transfers in Georgia. Geosyntec Consultants and CH2MHill, Inc. 
132 

Johnson, R. 1972. The Unionidae of peninsular Florida. Bulletin of the Florida State Museum, 

Biological Sciences 16: 181-249. 

Jordan, J. L. and A. T. Wolf. 2006. Interstate water allocation in Alabama, Florida, and Georgia: 

new issues, new methods, new models. University of Florida Press, Gainesville, FL. 

Klein, L. 2003. Investigation of the trout fishery in the Chattahoochee River below Buford Dam. 

GA DNR – Wildlife Resources Division, Atlanta, GA. 

LeChevallier, M W., W. D. Norton, and R. G. Lee. 1991. Occurrence of Giardia and 

Cryptosporidium spp. in surface water supplies. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 

57: 2610-2616. 

Leeth, D. C., M. F. Peck, and J.A. Painter. 2006. Ground-water conditions and studies in 

Georgia, 2004-2005. Scientific Investigations Report 207-5017. USGS, Reston, VA. 

Lettenmaier, D. P., A. W. Wood, R. N. Palmer, E. F. Wood, and E. Z. Stakhiv. 1999. Water 

resources implications of global warming: a U.S. regional perspective. Climatic Change 43: 

537-579. 

Long, J. M. and C. R. Martin. 2008. Fisheries management in the upper Chattahoochee River 

basin in response to water demands. American Fisheries Society Symposium 62: 1-15. 

Long, J.M., J.A. Tupy, and J. Scales. 2008. Chronology of rainbow trout reproduction in a 

warmwater tributary of the Chattahoochee River: Using an invasive species as an indicator of 

watershed integrity. River Research and Applications (DOI: 10.1002/rra/1119). 

Mallin, M. A. 2000. Impacts of industrial-scale swine and poultry production on rivers and 

estuaries. American Scientist 88: 26-37. 

Mallin, M. A., S. H. Ensign, M. R. McIver, G. C. Shank, and P. K. Fowler. 2001. Demographic, 

landscape, and meteorological factors controlling the microbial pollution of coastal waters. 

Hydrobiologia 460: 185-193. 

Mallin, M. A., V. L. Johnson, S. H. Ensign and T. A. MacPherson. 2006. Factors contributing to 

hypoxia in rivers, lakes and streams. Limnology and Oceanography 51: 690-701. 

Martin, C. 1985. Creel survey of the Chattahoochee River and an evaluation of the effects of 

poor fall water quality on trout. Final Report – Federal Aid Project F-26-12. GA DNR - 

Game and Fish Division, Atlanta, GA. 

Martin, C. R. and T. B. Hess. 1986. The impacts of sand and gravel dredging on trout and trout 

habitat in the Chattahoochee River, Georgia. Project Final Report. GA DNR – Game and 

Fish Division, Atlanta, GA. 

McMahon, G. and P. Stevens. 1995. Storage analysis for the ACF, ACT and Savannah river 

basins. In: Hatcher, K. J., editor. Georgia Water Resources Conference, University of 

Georgia, Athens, GA. 
133 

Meador, M. R. and A. O. Layer. 1998. Instream sand and gravel mining. Fisheries 23: 6-13. 

Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District (MNGWPD). 2003. Water supply and 

water conservation management plan – final report. MNGWPD, Atlanta, GA. 

Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District (MNGWPD). 2008. Public comment draft 

of the Metro Water District watershed management plan. Prepared for the MNGWPD by 

Metcalf & Eddy. MNGWPD, Atlanta, GA. Available at 

http://www.northgeorgiawater.org/files/2008-12-

12_Watershed_Public_Comment_DRAFT.pdf (last accessed April 2009). 

Mikalsen, T. 1989. Factors influencing the quality of urban streams in Georgia and the 

implications for stream management. Pages 135-138 in Hatcher, K., editor. Proceedings of 

the 1989 Georgia Water Resources Conference. University of Georgia, Athens, GA.

Morris, R., E. W. Taylor, and D. J. A. Brown. 1989. Acid toxicity and aquatic animals. 

Cambridge University Press, New York, NY. 

National Park Service (NPS). 1989. Chattahoochee River National Recreation Area – general 

management plan, development concept plan, environmental assessment. NPS, Atlanta, GA. 

National Park Service (NPS). 2004a. Affected environment, chapter 3. In: Chattahoochee River 

National Recreation Area Draft General Management Plan/EIS. NPS, Atlanta, GA. 

National Park Service (NPS). 2004b. Checklist of reptiles and amphibians – Chattahoochee 

River National Recreation Area. Southeast Coast Inventory and Monitoring Network 

Technical Report 2004-04. NPS, Atlanta, GA. 

National Park Service (NPS). 2008a. Chattahoochee River National Recreation Area Draft 

General Management Plan/EIS; and the Supplemental Draft General Management Plan/EIS 

NPS, Atlanta, GA. Available at: 

http://parkplanning.nps.gov/document.cfm?parkID=364&projectId=11174&documentID=13

100 (last accessed October 2008). 

National Park Service (NPS). 2008b. Chattahoochee River National Recreation Area. Available 

at: http://www.nps.gov/chat/ (last accessed September 2008). 

National Park Service (NPS). 2008c. NPSpecies – The National Park Service Biodiversity 

Database. Secure online version – certified organisms. Available at: 

https://science1.nature.nps.gov/npspecies/web/main/start (last accessed August 2008). 

National Research Council. 2000. Clean coastal waters – understanding and reducing the effects 

of nutrient pollution. National Academy Press, Washington, DC. 

Nestler, J. M., R. T. Milhous, J. Troxel, and J. Fritschen. 1984. Effects of flow alterations on 

trout, angling, and recreation in the Chattahoochee River between Buford Dam and Peachtree 

Creek. USACE Report. USACE Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS 
134 

Nico, L. and P. Fuller. 2008. Cyprinella lutrensis. USGS nonindigenous aquatic species 

database, Gainesville, FL. Available at: 

http://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/FactSheet.asp?speciesID=518 (last accessed August 2008).

Nomeir, A. A. and N. P. Hajjar. 1987. Metabolism of chlordane in mammals. Review of 

Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 100: 1–22. 

O’Brien, C. and J. Brim Box. 2003. Freshwater mussel survey of the Chattahoochee River 

National Recreation Area. Prepared for the Chattahoochee River National Recreation Area, 

Atlanta, GA. 

Olsen, L.A. 1984. Effects of contaminated sediment on fish and wildlife: review and annotated 

bibliography. Report FWS/OBS-82/66. U.S. FWS, Washington, DC. 

Parker, J. D., D. E. Burkepile, D. O. Collins, J. Kubanek, and M. E. Hay. 2007a. Stream mosses 

as chemically-defended refugia for freshwater macroinvertebrates. Oikos 116: 302-312. 

Parker, J. D., C. C. Caudill, and M. E. Hay. 2007b. Beaver herbivory on aquatic plants. 

Oecologia 151: 616-625. 

Parker, J. D. and M. E. Hay. 2005. Biotic resistance to plant invasions? Native herbivores prefer 

non-native plants. Ecology Letters 8: 959–967. 

Patz, J. A., D. Campbell-Lendrum, T. Holloway, and J. A. Foley. 2005. Impact of regional 

climate change on human health. Nature 438: 310-317. 

Paul, M.J. and J.L. Meyer. 2001. Streams in the urban landscape. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 32: 

333-365. 

Penuelas, J. and I. Filella. 2001. Responses to a warming world. Science 294: 793-795. 

Perry, V. 2005. Lake Lanier water quality. In: Hatcher, K. J., editor. Proceedings of the 2005 

Georgia Water Resources Conference. University of Georgia, Athens, GA. 

Porter, S. D. and D. A. Savignano. 1990. Invasion of polygyne fire ants decimates native ants 

and disrupts arthropod community. Ecology 71: 2095-2106. 

Qumerais, B., D. Cossa, B. Rondeau, T. T. Pham, and P. Gagnon. 1999. Sources and fluxes of 

mercury in the St. Lawrence River. Environmental Science and Technology 33: 840-849. 

Reynolds, A. and D. Hardy. 2007. Impervious surfaces: An indicator of watershed health. Poster 

presentation at the annual Environmental Systems Research Institute (ESRI) User 

Conference, San Diego, CA. Available at: 

http://www.nps.gov/gis/odyssey/2007/Panels/CHAT.jpg. 

Richter, B. D. R. Mathews, D. L. Harrison, and R. Wigington. 2003. Ecologically sustainable 

water management: Managing river flows for ecological integrity. Ecological Applications 

13: 206-224. 
135 

Schwela, D. 2000. Air pollution and health in urban areas. Reviews in Environmental Health 

15(1-2): 13-42. 

Shelton, S. 2006. Gwinnett gets OK to send treated sewage to Lanier. The Atlanta JournalConstitution, 7 Nov. 

Shelton, S. 2008. Question of right to water central in Lanier case. The Atlanta JournalConstitution, 12 Aug. 

Sickel, J. B. 1973. New record of Corbicula manilensis (Philippi) in the southern Atlantic slope 

region of Georgia. Nautilus 87:11-12. 

Sickel, J. B. 1986. Corbicula population mortalities: factors influencing population control. 

American Malacological Bulletin, Special Edition 2:89-94. 

Sprague, L. A., D. A. Harned, D. W. Hall, L. H. Nowell, N. J. Bauch, and K. D. Richards. 2007. 

Response of stream chemistry during base flow to gradients of urbanization in selected 

locations across the conterminous United States, 2002-04. USGS Scientific Investigations 

Report 2007-5083. USGS, Reston, VA. 

Sprague, L. A. and L. H. Nowell. 2008. Comparison of pesticide concentrations in streams at low 

flow in six metropolitan areas of the United States. Environmental Toxicology and 

Chemistry 27: 288-298. 

Straight, C.A., T.R. Reinert, B.J. Freeman, and J. Shelton. 2006. The swamp eel, Monopterus sp. 

cf. M. albus, in the Chattahoochee River system, Fulton County, Georgia. In: Hatcher, K. J., 

editor. Proceedings of the 2005 Georgia Water Resources Conference. University of 

Georgia, Athens, GA. 

Touchette, B. W., J. M. Burkholder, E. H. Allen, J. L. Alexander, C. A. Kinder, J. James, and C. 

H. Britton. 2007. Eutrophication and cyanobacteria blooms in run-of-river impoundments in 

North Carolina, U.S.A. Lake and Reservoir Management 23:179-192. 

Tuberville, T. D., J. D. Wilson, M. E. Dorcas, and J. W. Gibbons. 2005. Herpetofaunal species 

richness of southeastern National Parks. Southeastern Naturalist 4: 537-569. 

Turgeon, D.D., J.F. Quinn, Jr., A.E. Bogan, E.V. Coan, F.G. Hochberg, W.G. Lyons, P.M. 

Mikkelsen, R.J. Neves, C.F.E. Roper, G. Rosenberg, B. Roth, A. Scheltema, F.G. Thompson, 

M. Vecchione, and J.D. Williams. 1998. Common and scientific names of aquatic 

invertebrates from the United States and Canada: Mollusks, 2nd edition. American Fisheries 

Society Special Publication 26, Bethesda, Maryland. 

United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2007. Climate change 2007 

– the synthesis report. Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) of the United Nations IPCC. 

Available at: http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-syr.htm. 

United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 1987. Design memorandum, Lake Lanier reregulation dam (Vol. 1 of 2). USACE, Savannah District, Savannah, GA. 
136 

United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 1998. Water allocation for the ApalachicolaChattahoochee-Flint (ACF) River basin. Main Report of the Draft Environmental Impact 

Statement. USACE, Mobile District, Mobile, AL. Federal Register 63: 53023–53024. 

United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2005. National inventory of dams. Available 

at: http://crunch.tec.army.mil/nidpublic/webpages/nid.cfm (last accessed September 2008). 

United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 1986. Ambient water quality 

criteria for bacteria – 1986. Report EPA440/5-84-002. Office of Water, U.S. EPA, 

Washington, DC. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/beaches/files/1986crit.pdf

(last accessed September 2008). 

United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2000. Ambient water quality 

criteria recommendations, information supporting the development of state and tribal nutrient 

criteria: Rivers and streams in Nutrient Ecoregion IX. Report EPA 822-B-00-011. U.S. EPA, 

Washington, DC. 

United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2002. National recommended water 

quality criteria: 2002. Report EPA-822-R-02-047. U.S. EPA, Washington, DC. 

United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2003. Bacterial water quality 

standards for recreational waters (freshwater and marine waters): Status report. Report EPA823-R-03-008. U.S. EPA, Washington, DC. 

United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2004. 305(b) lists/assessment unit 

information - year 2004. Office of Water, U.S. EPA, Washington, DC. Available at 

http://oaspub.epa.gov/tmdl/w305b_report_V4.huc?p_huc=03130002&p_state=GA (last 

accessed July 2008). 

United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2008. Enforcement & compliance 

history online (ECHO). Available at: http://www.epaecho.gov/echo/compliance_report_water.html (last accessed October 2008). 

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (U.S. FWS). 1998. Endangered and threatened wildlife 

and plants; determination of endangered status for five freshwater mussels and threatened 

status for two freshwater mussels from the eastern Gulf slope drainages of Alabama, Florida, 

and Georgia. Federal Register 63:12665-12687. 

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (U.S. FWS). 2001. Wetlands data. U.S. FWS, United 

States Department of the Interior, Washington, DC. Available at 

http://enterprise.nwi.fws.gov/downloads.htm. 

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (U.S. FWS). 2007. Chattahoochee Forest National Fish 

Hatchery. U.S. FWS, Reston, VA. 

United States Geological Survey (USGS). 2008a. NAS - nonindigenous aquatic species – 

Monopterus albus. Available at: http://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/FactSheet.asp?speciesID=974. 
137 

United States Geological Survey (USGS). 2008b. Chattahoochee Riverway Project – 

Chattahoochee BacteriALERT. Available at: http://ga2.er.usgs.gov/bacteria/partners.cfm

(last accessed September 2008). 

Watters, G.T. 2000. Freshwater mollusks and water quality: a review of the effects of 

hydrologic and instream habitat alterations. Pages 261-274 in: Johnson, P. D. and R. S. 

Butler, editors. Freshwater mollusk symposium proceedings - Part II: Proceedings of the 

First Symposium of the Freshwater Mollusk Conservation Society, Chattanooga, Tennessee, 

March 1999. Ohio Biological Survey, Columbus, OH. 

Wetzel, R.G. 2001. Limnology, 3rd edition. Academic Press, New York, NY. 

Wharton, C.H. 1978. The natural environments of Georgia. GA DNR, Atlanta, GA. 

Williams, J. D. and R. J. Neves. 1995. Freshwater mussels: a neglected and declining aquatic 

resource. Pages 177-179 in: Our living resources. U.S. Department of the Interior, 

Washington, DC. 

Williams, J.D., M.L. Warren, Jr., K.S. Cummings, J.L. Harris, and R.J. Neves. 1993. Conservation status of freshwater mussels of the United States and Canada. Fisheries 18: 6-22. 

Zirschky, J., G.P. Keary, R.O. Gilbert, and E.J. Middlebrooks. 1985. Spatial estimation of 

hazardous waste site data. Journal of Environmental Engineering 111: 777-789. 

Zogorski, J. S., J. M. Carter, T. Ivahnenko, W. W. Lapham, M. J. Moran, B. L. Rowe, P. J. 

Squillace, and P. L. Toccalino. 2006. The quality of our nation’s waters – volatile organic 

compounds in the nation’s ground water and drinking-water supply wells. Circular 1292. 

USGS, Reston, VA. 

139 

Appendix 1. USGS discharge and stream height data for the 

Chattahoochee River and tributaries in or within ~five miles 

upstream from the park, considering active or recently 

maintained stations 

See Table 7 for more information about the stations. 
140 

USGS 02334430 CHATTAHOOCHEE RIVER AT BUFORD DAM, NEAR BUFORD, GA

         Annual Averages
141 

USGS 02334430 CHATTAHOOCHEE RIVER AT BUFORD DAM, NEAR BUFORD, GA 

     Monthly Averages
142 

USGS 02334430 CHATTAHOOCHEE RIVER AT BUFORD DAM, NEAR BUFORD, GA 

          Monthly Averages (cont’d.)
143 

USGS 02335000 CHATTAHOOCHEE RIVER NEAR NORCROSS, GA 

    Annual Averages   
144 

USGS 02335000 CHATTAHOOCHEE RIVER NEAR NORCROSS, GA 

    Monthly Averages   
145 

USGS 02335000 CHATTAHOOCHEE RIVER NEAR NORCROSS, GA 

          Monthly Averages   
146 

USGS 02335450 CHATTAHOOCHEE RIVER ABOVE ROSWELL, GA 

          Annual Averages   
147 

USGS 02335450 CHATTAHOOCHEE RIVER ABOVE ROSWELL, GA 

          Monthly Averages   
148 

USGS 02335450 CHATTAHOOCHEE RIVER ABOVE ROSWELL, GA 

          Monthly Averages   
149 

USGS 02335815 CHATTAHOOCHEE RIVER BELOW MORGAN FALLS DAM, GA 

     Annual Averages

     Monthly Averages
150 

USGS 02334480 RICHLAND CREEK AT SUWANEE DAM ROAD, NEAR BUFORD, GA 

             Annual Averages

           Monthly Averages
151 

USGS 02334578 LEVEL CREEK AT SUWANEE DAM ROAD, NEAR SUWANEE, GA 

 Annual Averages 

 Monthly Averages 
152 

USGS 02334620 DICK CREEK – Old Atlanta Road near Suwanee 

 Annual Averages 

 Monthly Averages 
153 

USGS 02334885 SUWANEE CREEK AT SUWANEE, GA 

 Annual Averages 
154 

USGS 02334885 SUWANEE CREEK AT SUWANEE, GA 

 Monthly Averages
155 

USGS 02335350 CROOKED CREEK NEAR NORCROSS, GA 

 Annual Averages 

 Monthly Averages 
156 

USGS 02335700 BIG CREEK NEAR ALPHARETTA, GA 

 Annual Averages 
157 

USGS 02335700 BIG CREEK NEAR ALPHARETTA, GA 

 Monthly Averages 
158 

USGS 02335700 BIG CREEK NEAR ALPHARETTA, GA 

 Monthly Averages (cont’d.) 
159 

USGS 02335757 BIG CREEK BELOW HOG WALLOW CREEK AT ROSWELL, GA 

 Annual Averages 

 Monthly Averages 
160 

 USGS 02335870 SOPE CREEK NEAR MARIETTA, GA 

 Annual Averages 
161 

USGS 02335790 WILLEO CREEK AT GA 120, NEAR ROSWELL, GA 

 (data available for 11 May 07 – 4 Nov 08) 

163 

Appendix 2. Available data for water quality conditions at or 

near the park over the past ~decade, also indicating 

unacceptable conditions. 

In these tables, nd ≡ not detectable; sv ≡ single value. Underline and bold ≡ data in violation of 

state standard (GA DNR 2008d), except for fecal coliforms. This Appendix considers all fecal 

coliform and Escherichia coli data collectively, whereas Appendix 3 considers data amenable to 

calculation of geometric means. Since only some of the bacterial data were collected with 

sufficient frequency to enable calculation of geometric means – which are used for the state 

standards – the data here were evaluated as follows: Values underlined suggest degraded 

conditions. These samples exceeded the FC water quality standard values for geometric means (> 

200 mpn/100 mL, May - Oct; > 1,000 mpn/100 mL, Nov - Apr); or they exceeded the U.S. EPA 

standard (>235 mpn/100 mL). The fecal bacterial data were also evaluated at the 400 mpn/100 

mL level, which is the criterion recommended by the U.S. EPA (2003) for data collected too 

infrequently for calculation of geometric means by the state’s criteria (at least 4 samples 

collected within a 30-day period). Fecal coliform densities were assessed by the multiple-tube 

procedure (EC medium) or the membrane filter (MF) technique (M-FC medium). E. coli 

densities were assessed by the multiple-tube procedure (EC-MUG medium), the membrane filter 

technique (m-TEC MF or modified m-TEC MF) or by the enzyme substrate test using IDEXX 

Quanti-Trays (American Public Health Association 1992). For other parameters, blue and bold ≡

can support noxious algal blooms (NO3-+NO2- – see Mallin 2000), or data exceeded 

recommended values to protect aquatic life (BOD5 – see Mallin 2006). Bold shaded ≡ data 

exceeded recommended values for acceptable water quality (U.S. EPA 2000: for TSS, 25 mg/L 

maximum, and < 10 mg/L increase from a sudden spike; for heavy metals (Al, Cu, Hg, Pb, Ni, 

Zn), see Table 20). Note that the U.S. EPA (2002) recommends that pH be maintained within the 

range 6.5-9, but this Report follows Georgia regulations (pH > 6.0). 
164 

Table A2-1. Water quality data for source water and Park Section I (Units 1-3). 
165 

Table A2-1. (Continued). 
166 

Table A2-1. (Continued). 
167 

Table A2-1. (Continued). 
168 

Table A2-1. (Continued). 
169 

Table A2-2. Water quality data for Park Section II (Units 4-8).a
170 

Table A2-2. (Continued). 
171 

Table A2-2. (Continued). 
172 

Table A2-2. (Continued). 
173 

Table A2-2. (Continued). 
174 

Table A2-2. (Continued). 
175 

Table A2-3. Water quality data for Park Section III (Units 9-13).a 
176 

Table A2-3. (Continued). 
177 

Table A2-3. (Continued). 
178 

Table A2-3. (Continued). 
179 

Table A2-3. (Continued). 
180 

Table A2-3. (Continued). 
181 

Table A2-3. (Continued). 
182 

Table A2-3. (Continued). 
183 

Table A2-4. Water quality data for Park Section IV (Units 14-16).a 
184 

Table A2-4. (Continued). 
185 

Table A2-4. (Continued). 
186 

Table A2-4. (Continued). 
187 

Table A2-4. (Continued). 
188 

Table A2-4. (Continued). 
189 

Table A2-4. (Continued). 

191 

Appendix 3. Fecal coliform data – geometric means (gms). 

Table A3-1. Fecal coliform (FC) and Escherichia coli (EC) data sampled with sufficient frequency to 

calculate gms (units, mpn or colonies or cfu/100 mL – see Appendix 2). Values that exceed the state 

standards (FC) or the U.S. EPA standard (EC) are in blue+bold. Numbers in parentheses ≡ the 

percentage of samples that were in violation of the state standards (FC) or U.S. EPA standard (EC).a 

______________________________________________________________ 

Date FC E. coli Date FC E. coli 

______________________________________________________________ 

Section I 

Gwinnett County – Richland Creek (at USGS 02334480) (39% FC) .

Jul 01 1,316 ---- Jan 05 158 ---- 

Oct 01 134 ---- Apr 05 222 ---- 

Jan 02 334 ---- May 05 270 ----

Apr 02 226 ---- Oct 05 267 ----

May 02 270 ---- Jan 06 74 ---- 

Oct 02 285 ---- Apr 06 55 ---- 

Jan 03 16 ---- May 06 207 ----

Apr 03 204 ---- Oct 06 1,076 ----

May 03 1,434 ---- Jan 07 109 ---- 

Oct 03 350 ---- Apr 07 68 ---- 

Jan 04 180 ---- May 07 128 ---- 

Apr 04 182 ---- Oct 07 279 ----

May 04 394 ---- Jan 08 149 ---- 

Oct 04 139 ---- Apr 08 87 ----

USGS 20334500 – Chattahoochee River, Bowman’s Island

Jan/Feb 00 15 ---- Jul/Aug 18 ---- 

May/Jun 00 10 ---- Sep/Oct 55 ---- 

Forsyth County JSF-1 – James Creek (33% FC) 

Jun/Jul 06 174 ---- Nov/Dec 07 558 ---- 

Sep 06 548 ---- Feb/Mar 08 372 ---- 

Oct/Nov 06 980 ---- May 08 151 ---- 

Nov/Dec 06 188 ---- Aug 08 100 ---- 

Aug/Sep 07 228 ---- 

Gwinnett County – Level Creek (at USGS 02334578) (43% FC) .

Jul 01 1,393 ---- Jan 05 49 ---- 

Oct 01 395 ---- Apr 05 179 ---- 

Jan 02 226 ---- May 05 243 ----

Apr 02 220 ---- Oct 05 388 ----

May 02 330 ---- Jan 06 131 ---- 

Oct 02 395 ---- Apr 06 278 ---- 

Jan 03 110 ---- May 06 323 ----

Apr 03 155 ---- Oct 06 191 ----

May 03 2,830 ---- Jan 07 268 ---- 

Oct 03 331 ---- Apr 07 195 ---- 

Jan 04 106 ---- May 07 204 ---- 

Apr 04 269 ---- Oct 07 426 ----

May 04 496 ---- Jan 08 114 ---- 

Oct 04 173 ---- Apr 08 362 ---- 
192 

Table A3-1. (Continued). 

_________________________________________________________________ 

Date FC E. coli Date FC E. coli 

_________________________________________________________________ 

Forsyth County DKF-1 – Dick Creek (44% FC) .

Jun/Jul 06 187 ---- Nov/Dec 07 427 ---- 

Sep 06 513 ---- Feb/Mar 08 190 ---- 

Oct/Nov 06 403 ---- May 08 373 ---- 

Nov/Dec 06 134 ---- Aug 08 347 ----

Aug/Sep 07 157 ---- 

Section II 

GA DNR 12048001 – Chattahoochee River (8% FC) .

Apr 01 15 ---- Jul 02 40 ---- 

Jun 01 122 ---- Oct 02 214 ---- 

Jul 01 67 ---- Jan 03 2 ---- 

Oct 01 2 ---- Apr 03 34 ---- 

Jan 02 49 ---- Jul 03 63 ---- 

Apr 02 7 ---- Oct 03 2 ---- 

Forsyth County CHF-1 – Chattahoochee River 

Jun/Jul 06 7 ---- Nov/Dec 07 26 ---- 

Sep 06 13 ---- Feb/Mar 08 79 ----

Oct/Nov 06 89 ---- May 08 52 ---- 

Nov/Dec 06 14 ---- Aug 08 52 ---- 

Aug/Sep 07 15 ---- 

USGS 02334885 – Suwanee Creek (67% FC) .

May/Jun 00 192 ---- Sep/Oct 00 1,169 ---- 

Jul/Aug 00 369 ---- 

Gwinnett County – Suwanee Creek (at USGS 02334885) (39% FC) .

Jul 01 1,346 ---- Jan 05 107 ---- 

Oct 01 197 ---- Apr 05 152 ---- 

Jan 02 207 ---- May 05 202 ----

Apr 02 216 ---- Oct 05 311 ----

May 02 368 ---- Jan 06 74 ---- 

Oct 02 447 ---- Apr 06 98 ---- 

Jan 03 92 ---- May 06 169 ----

Apr 03 225 ---- Oct 06 262 ----

May 03 1,749 ---- Jan 07 324 ---- 

Oct 03 344 ---- Apr 07 116 ---- 

Jan 04 159 ---- May 07 128 ---- 

Apr 04 212 ---- Oct 07 524 ----

May 04 528 ---- Jan 08 97 ---- 

Oct 04 305 ---- Apr 08 79 ---- 

Fulton County CC-2 – Cauley Creek (50% FC) .

Jun 07 601 ---- Nov 07 251 ---- 

Aug 07 780 ---- Feb 08 110 ----

_________________________________________________________________ 
193 

Table A3-1. (Continued). 

_________________________________________________________________ 

Date FC E. coli Date FC E. coli 

_________________________________________________________________ 

USGS 2335000 – Chattahoochee River (19% EC) .

Oct 00 ---- 34 Dec 00 ---- 31 

Nov 00 ---- 45 Jan 01 --- 33

Feb 01 ---- 43 Jul 04 ---- 68 

Mar 01 ---- 98 Aug 04 ---- 57 

Apr 01 ---- 62 Sep 04 ---- 161

May 01 ---- 72 Oct 04 ---- 27 

Jun 01 ---- 113 Nov 04 ---- 111 

Jul 01 143 215 Dec 04 ---- 68 

Aug 01 ---- 103 Jan 04 ---- 67 

Sep 01 ---- 80 Feb 05 ---- 181

Oct 01 ---- 41 Mar 05 ---- 128

Nov 01 ---- 30 Apr 05 ---- 43 

Dec 01 ---- 62 May 05 ---- 63 

Jan 02 ---- 86 Jun 05 ---- 223

Feb 02 ---- 40 Jul 05 ---- 519

Mar 02 ---- 89 Aug 05 ---- 271 

Apr 02 ---- 77 Sep 05 ---- 64 

May 02 ---- 155 Oct 05 ---- 90 

Jun 02 ---- 87 Nov 05 ---- 99 

Jul 02 ---- 79 Dec 05 ---- 116 

Aug 02 ---- 57 Jan 06 ---- 90 

Sep 02 ---- 166 Feb 06 ---- 35 

Oct 02 ---- 178 Mar 06 ---- 31 

Nov 02 ---- 114 Apr 06 ---- 30 

Dec 02 ---- 100 May 06 ---- 46 

Jan 03 ---- 36 Jun 06 ---- 53 

Feb 03 ---- 48 Jul 06 ---- 71 

Mar 03 ---- 33 Aug 06 ---- 107 

Apr 03 ---- 58 Sep 06 ---- 98 

May 03 ---- 108 Oct 06 ---- 61 

Jun 03 ---- 209 Nov 06 ---- 48 

Jul 03 ---- 374 Dec 06 ---- 23

Aug 03 ---- 164 Jan 07 ---- 106 

Sep 03 ---- 83 Feb 07 ---- 68 

Oct 03 ---- 64 Mar 07 ---- 40 

Nov 03 ---- 133 Apr 07 ---- 29 

Dec 03 ---- 85 May 07 ---- 37 

Jan 04 ---- 57 Jun 07 ---- 44 

Feb 04 ---- 60 Jul 07 ---- 172 

Mar 04 ---- 29 Aug 07 ---- 69 

Apr 04 ---- 74 Sep 07 ---- 41 

May 04 ---- 95 Oct 07 ---- 56

Jun 04 ---- 195 Nov 07 ---- 35 

 

BacteriALERT Site 1, Chattahoochee River (17% EC) , 

Oct 00 ---- 34 Apr 01 ---- 62 

Nov 00 ---- 45 May 01 ---- 72 

Dec 00 ---- 33 Jun 01 ---- 113 

_________________________________________________________________ 
194 

Table A3-1. (Continued). 

_________________________________________________________________ 

Date FC E. coli Date FC E. coli 

_________________________________________________________________ 

BacteriALERT Site 1, Chattahoochee River (cont’d.)

Jan 01 ---- 32 Feb 05 ---- 199

Feb 01 ---- 43 Mar 05 ---- 126

Mar 01 ---- 98 Apr 05 ---- 48 

Jul 01 ---- 215 May 05 ---- 63 

Aug 01 ---- 103 Jun 05 ---- 239

Sep 01 ---- 80 Jul 05 ---- 281 

Oct 01 ---- 41 Aug 05 ---- 272

Nov 01 ---- 31 Sep 05 ---- 66 

Dec 01 ---- 62 Oct 05 ---- 90 

Jan 02 ---- 86 Nov 05 ---- 99

Feb 02 ---- 40 Dec 05 ---- 116

Mar 02 ---- 89 Jan 06 ---- 90 

Apr 02 ---- 77 Feb 06 ---- 35 

May 02 ---- 148 Mar 06 ---- 30

Jun 02 ---- 87 Apr 06 ---- 30 

Jul 02 ---- 71 May 06 ---- 46 

Aug 02 ---- 61 Jun 06 ---- 53 

Sep 02 ---- 166 Jul 06 ---- 73 

Oct 02 ---- 178 Aug 06 ---- 107 

Nov 02 ---- 114 Sep 06 ---- 114 

Dec 02 ---- 101 Oct 06 ---- 47 

Jan 03 ---- 36 Nov 06 ---- 48 

Feb 03 ---- 48 Dec 06 ---- 23 

Mar 03 ---- 33 Jan 07 ---- 68 

Apr 03 ---- 59 Feb 07 ---- 76 

May 03 ---- 111 Mar 07 ---- 34 

Jun 03 ---- 209 Apr 07 ---- 25 

Jul 03 ---- 373 May 07 ---- 42 

Aug 03 ---- 147 Jun 07 ---- 51

Sep 03 ---- 84 Jul 07 ---- 172

Oct 03 ---- 64 Aug 07 ---- 69 

Nov 03 ---- 135 Sep 07 ---- 40

Dec 03 ---- 85 Oct 07 ---- 56 

Jan 04 ---- 63 Nov 07 ---- 35 

Feb 04 ---- 64 Dec 07 ---- 90 

Mar 04 ---- 29 Jan 08 ---- 26 

Apr 04 ---- 74 Feb 08 ---- 33 

May 04 ---- 96 Mar 08 ---- 41 

Jun 04 ---- 196 Apr 08 ---- 40

Jul 04 ---- 69 May 08 ---- 44 

Aug 04 ---- 57 Jun 08 ---- 88 

Sep 04 ---- 130 Jul 08 ---- 142 

Oct 04 ---- 24 Aug 08 ---- 74 

Nov 04 ---- 112 Sep 08 ---- 63 

Dec 04 ---- 71 Oct 08 ---- 55

Jan 05 ---- 63 Nov 08 ---- 34 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 
195 

Table A3-1. (Continued). 

_________________________________________________________________ 

Date FC E. coli Date FC E. coli 

_________________________________________________________________ 

Section III 

Fulton County JO-1 (50% FC) .

Jan 07 560 ---- Nov 07 206 ---- 

Aug 07 335 ---- Feb 08 292 ----

GA DNR 12055001 – Chattahoochee River (18% FC) .

Apr 01 8 ---- Oct 02 220 ---- 

Jul 01 87 ---- Jan 03 7 ---- 

Oct 01 13 ---- Apr 03 25 ---- 

Jan 02 89 ---- Jul 03 464 ----

Apr 02 88 ---- Oct 03 112 ---- 

Jul 02 72 ---- 

DeKalb Co. – Scott Candler WTP, Chattahoochee River (16% FC, 3% EC) .

Jan 05 43 ---- Mar 07 ---- 42 

Feb 05 117 ---- Apr 07 ---- 36 

Mar 05 90 ---- May 07 ---- 40 

Apr 05 57 ---- Jun 07 ---- 36 

May 05 61 ---- Jul 07 ---- 91 

Jun 05 227 ---- Aug 07 ---- 42

Jul 05 721 ---- Sep 07 ---- 24

Aug 05 598 ---- Oct 07 ---- 55

Sep 05 69 ---- Nov 07 ---- 18 

Oct 05 166 ---- Dec 07 ---- 25 

Nov 05 141 ---- Jan 08 ---- 42 

Dec 05 44 ---- Feb 08 ---- 40 

Jan 06 35 ---- Mar 08 ---- 38 

Feb 06 30 ---- Apr 08 ---- 45 

Mar 06 32 ---- May 08 ---- 82 

Apr 06 39 ---- Jun 08 ---- 104 

May 06 47 ---- Jul 08 ---- 125 

Jun 06 60 ---- Aug 08 ---- 108 

Jul 06 93 ---- Sep 08 ---- 98 

Aug 06 ---- 223 Oct 08 ---- 59

Sep 06 ---- 99 Nov 08 ---- 33 

Oct 06 ---- 81 Dec 08 ---- 48 

Nov 06 ---- 37 Jan 09 ---- 63 

Dec 06 ---- 30 Feb 09 ---- 25 

Jan 07 ---- 50 Mar 09 ---- 92 

Feb 07 ---- 36 

USGS 02335350 – Crooked Creek (75% FC) . 

Jan/Feb 00 96 ---- Jul/Aug 00 343 ---- 

May/Jun 00 865 ---- Sep/Oct 00 237 ---- 

Gwinnett County – Crooked Creek (at USGS 02335350) (43% FC) .

Jul 01 891 ---- Apr 02 193 ---- 

Oct 01 107 ---- May 02 216 ---- 

Jan 02 71 ---- Oct 02 424 ---- 
196 

Table A3-1. (Continued). 

_________________________________________________________________ 

Date FC E. coli Date FC E. coli 

_________________________________________________________________ 

Section III (cont’d.) 

USGS 02335350 (Crooked Creek, cont’d.) .

Jan 03 43 ---- Oct 05 495 ---- 

Apr 03 1,636 ---- Apr 06 224 ---- 

May 03 1,699 ---- May 06 255 ---- 

Oct 03 191 ---- Oct 06 150 ----

Jan 04 76 ---- Jan 07 89 ---- 

Apr 04 1,263 ---- Apr 07 112 ---- 

May 04 1,484 ---- May 07 276 ---- 

Oct 04 162 ---- Oct 07 371 ----

Jan 05 99 ---- Jan 08 151 ----

Apr 05 270 ---- Apr 08 73 ---- 

May 05 709 ---- 

Fulton County CK-1 – Ball Mill Creek (25% FC) 

Jun 07 524 ---- Nov 07 96 ---- 

Aug 07 179 ---- Feb 08 807 ---- 

City of Alpharetta – Big Creek (100% FC)

Oct-Nov 05 1,936 ---- 

GA DNR 12060001, Chatthoochee River (45% FC) 

Apr 01 115 ---- Oct 02 1,387 ----

Jul 01 1,185 ---- Jan 03 81 ---- 

Oct 01 160 ---- Apr 03 377 ----

Jan 02 342 ---- Jul 03 405 ----

Apr 02 324 ---- Oct 03 742 ---- 

Jul 02 660 ---- 

Fulton County MA-1, Marsh Creek (75% FC) 

Jun 07 350 ---- 

Aug 07 333 ---- 

Nov 07 138 ---- 

Feb 08 1,084 ---- 

GA DNR 12070001, Chattahoochee River (27% FC) . 

Apr 01 26 ---- Oct 02 255 ----

Jul 01 223 ---- Jan 03 30 ---- 

Oct 01 107 ---- Apr 03 154 ---- 

Jan 02 28 ---- Jul 03 415 ----

Apr 02 15 ---- Oct 03 147 ---- 

Jul 02 35 ---- 

MWA, Cobb County (J.E. Quarles WTP water intake, Chattahoochee River)b

Sep 07 ---- 31 Mar 08 ---- 32

Oct 07 ---- 38 Apr 08 ---- 23

Nov 07 ---- 22 May 08 ---- 25 

Dec 07 ---- 46 Jun 08 ---- 32 
197 

Jan 08 ---- 27 Jul 08 ---- 26 

Feb 08 ---- 35 Aug 08 ---- 38

Table A3-1. (Continued). 

_________________________________________________________________ 

Date FC E. coli Date FC E. coli 

_________________________________________________________________ 

Section III (cont’d.) 

MWA, Cobb County (cont’d.) .

Sep 08 ---- 21 Jan 09 ---- 50 

Oct 08 ---- 32 Feb 09 ---- 16 

Nov 08 ---- 36 Mar 09 ---- 76 

Dec 08 ---- 82 

BacteriALERT Site 2 – Chattahoochee River, Johnson Ferry (21% EC) . 

Oct 01 ---- 61 May 02 ---- 51 

Nov 01 ---- 28 Jun 02 ---- 25 

Dec 01 ---- 61 Jul 02 ---- 41 

Jan 02 ---- 107 Aug 02 ---- 67 

Feb 02 ---- 29 Sep 02 ---- 137 

Mar 02 ---- 46 Oct 02 ---- 207 

Apr 02 ---- 47 Nov 02 ---- 219 

USGS 2335830 – Chattahoochee River, Johnson Ferry (21% FC, 26% EC) ,

Apr 99 78 57 Oct 01 ---- 61 

May 99 81 30 Nov 01 ---- 28 

Jun 99 267 391 Dec 01 ---- 61 

Jul 99 85 92 Jan 02 ---- 107 

Aug 99 200 166 Feb 02 ---- 29 

Sep 99 58 47 Mar 02 ---- 46 

Oct 99 257 ---- Apr 02 ---- 47 

Nov 99 55 ---- May 02 ---- 51 

Dec 99 53 57 Jun 02 ---- 25 

Jan/Feb 00 39, 87c

 38 Jul 02 ---- 39 

Mar/Apr 00 316 281 Aug 02 ---- 67 

May/Jun 00 103 ---- Sep 02 ---- 137

Jul/Aug 00 132 ---- Oct 02 ---- 191 

Sep/Oct 00 40 ---- Nov 02 ---- 240 

Section IV 

Fulton County LI-2, Long Island Creek (50% FC) ,

Jun 07 835 ---- Nov 07 255 ----

Aug 07 464 ---- Feb 08 531 ---- 

NPS Site 3, Chattahoochee River, Paces Ferry (55% EC) . 

Oct 00 ---- 39 Aug 01 ---- 260

Nov 00 ---- 66 Sep 01 ---- 153 

Dec 00 ---- 56 Oct 01 ---- 100 

Jan 01 ---- 85 Nov 01 ---- 70 

Feb 01 ---- 163 Dec 01 ---- 126 

Mar 01 ---- 322 Jan 02 ---- 127
198 

Apr 01 ---- 70 Feb 02 ---- 73 

May 01 ---- 155 Mar 02 ---- 139

Jun 01 ---- 277 Apr 02 ---- 120

Jul 01 ---- 349 May 02 ---- 203

Table A3-1. (Continued). 

_________________________________________________________________ 

Date FC E. coli Date FC E. coli 

_________________________________________________________________ 

NPS Site 3, Chattahoochee River, Paces Ferry (cont’d.) . 

Jun 02 ---- 153 Sep 05 ---- 134

Jul 02 ---- 210 Oct 05 ---- 194

Aug 02 ---- 97 Nov 05 ---- 309

Sep 02 ---- 259 Dec 05 ---- 127

Oct 02 ---- 304 Jan 06 ---- 136 

Nov 02 ---- 353 Feb 06 ---- 66

Dec 02 ---- 307 Mar 06 ---- 67 

Jan 03 ---- 63 Apr 06 ---- 111 

Feb 03 ---- 103 May 06 ---- 98 

Mar 03 ---- 105 Jun 06 ---- 114 

Apr 03 ---- 153 Jul 06 ---- 127 

May 03 ---- 471 Aug 06 ---- 363 

Jun 03 ---- 519 Sep 06 ---- 494

Jul 03 ---- 465 Oct 06 ---- 126

Aug 03 ---- 462 Nov 06 ---- 122

Sep 03 ---- 341 Dec 06 ---- 27

Oct 03 ---- 239 Jan 07 ---- 111

Nov 03 ---- 322 Feb 07 ---- 116 

Dec 03 ---- 141 Mar 07 ---- 31 

Jan 04 ---- 99 Apr 07 ---- 92 

Feb 04 ---- 117 May 07 ---- 78 

Mar 04 ---- 51 Jun 07 ---- 98 

Apr 04 ---- 79 Jul 07 ---- 208 

May 04 ---- 162 Aug 07 ---- 141

Jun 04 ---- 349 Sep 07 ---- 113 

Jul 04 ---- 423 Oct 07 ---- 117 

Aug 04 ---- 161 Nov 07 ---- 57 

Sep 04 ---- 359 Dec 07 ---- 80 

Oct 04 ---- 114 Jan 08 ---- 101 

Nov 04 ---- 332 Feb 08 ---- 155 

Dec 04 ---- 207 Mar 08 ---- 136

Jan 05 ---- 92 Apr 08 ---- 103 

Feb 05 ---- 265 May 08 ---- 188

Mar 05 ---- 243 Jun 08 ---- 110

Apr 05 ---- 118 Jul 08 ---- 243 

May 05 ---- 107 Aug 08 ---- 115 

Jun 05 ---- 773 Sep 08 ---- 90 

Jul 05 ---- 547 Oct 08 ---- 86 

Aug 05 ---- 579 Nov 08 ---- 136 

_________________________________________________________________ 

a

 State standards for fecal coliforms: gm of at least 4 samples taken within 30 days 

 should not exceed 200 mpn/100 mL from April through October, or 1,000 mpn/100 

 mL from November through March (mpn, colonies, and cfu units considered 

 interchangeably). U.S. EPA standard for Escherichia coli: gm of at least 5 
199 

 samples taken within 30 days should not exceed 126 cells or cfu per 100 mL. 

b For this station, monthly gms are reported for data taken daily. c

 Considering two different methods (see Appendix 2). 
200 

Appendix 4. Available WQ data (past ~decade) and 

percentage of samples indicating unacceptable conditions, 

evaluated using the criteria from Appendix 1. 

Table A4-1. Sampling duration/frequency for water quality stations in and near CHATT, and number/ 

percent of samples indicating unacceptable water quality conditions as follows: DO and pH were in 

violation of the state standards (GA DNR 2008d); fecal coliforms indicated degraded water quality (see 

Table 29 and Appendix 2; Appendix 4 considers all fecal coliform and Escherichia coli data); nutrients 

exceeded concentrations known to support noxious algal blooms (Mallin 2000 – note that “nitrate” here ≡

NO3

-

N + NO2

-

N); BOD5 exceeded 3 mg/L (Mallin 2006); and other parameters exceeded recommended 

values for acceptable water quality (U.S. EPA 2000) including TSS (> 25 mg/L maximum) and heavy 

metals (Al, Cu, Hg, Pb, Ni, Zn – see Table 20). The U.S. EPA (2002) recommends that pH be maintained 

within the range 6.5-9, but this report follows Georgia regulations (pH > 6.0).a Percentages are rounded 

to the nearest integer. 
201 

Table A4-1. (Continued). 
202 

Table A4-1. (Continued). 
203 

Table A4-1. (Continued).
204 

Table A4-1. (Continued). 
205 

Table A4-1. (Continued).
206 

Table A4-1. (Continued).
207 

Table A4-1. (Continued).
208 

Table A4-1. (Continued).
209 

Table A4-1. (Continued).
210 

Table A4-1. (Continued).

212 

Appendix 5. Georgia Water Quality Standards for all Waters: 

Toxic Substances
213 
214 
215 

217 

Appendix 6. Criteria for classification of major lakes and 

tributaries as meeting or not meeting their designated uses. 

 
218 
The Department of the Interior protects and manages the nation’s natural resources and cultural heritage; provides scientific and 

other information about those resources; and honors its special responsibilities to American Indians, Alaska Natives, and affiliated 

Island Communities. 

NPS 363/106205, December 2010 
National Park Service 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

Natural Resource Program Center

1201 Oakridge Drive, Suite 150 

Fort Collins, CO 80525 

www.nature.nps.gov 

EXPERIENCE YOUR AMERICA TM