Project ID #15-0425
PRO
Proctor Creek Watershed Monitoring
Addendum: Storm water Report
Fulton County, GA
Project Dates: July 2017 - October 2018
Report Date: May 8,2020
Project Leader: Susan Dye
Environmental Sampling Section
Applied Science Branch
Laboratory Services & Applied Science Division
USEPA - Region 4
980 College Station Road
Athens, Georgia 30605-2720
The activities described in this report are accredited under the US EPA Region 4 Science and
Ecosystem Support Division ISO/IEC 17025 accreditation issued by the ANSI-ASQ National
Accreditation Board. Refer to certificate and scope of accreditation AT-1644.
Project ID #15-0425
Proctor Creek Watershed Monitoring Addendum: Stonnwater Report
Page 1 of 33
-------
Requestor:
Sampling & Analytical Support:
Cynthia Edwards
Water Division
USEPA Region 4
61 Forsyth St. SW
Atlanta, GA 30303-8960
John Joiner
South Atlantic Water Science Center
United States Geological Survey
1770 Corporate Drive #500
Norcross, GA 30093
Approvals:
LSASD Project Leader:
/ Digitally signed by SUSAN DYE
"4 Elate: 2020.05.08 08:27:39
/ V ' -04'00'
Susan Dye Date
Environmental Sampling Section
Applied Science Branch
Approving Official:
QTAfFY ROV Digitally signed by STACEY BOX
O I /-\V>IZ T DW/\ Date: 2020.05.08 12:26:19 -04'00'
Stacey Box, Chief Date
Environmental Sampling Section
Applied Science Branch
Project ID #15-0425
Proctor Creek Watershed Monitoring Addendum: Stormwater Report
Page 2 of 33
-------
Table of Contents
1.0 Introduction 4
2.0 Methods 4
2.1 Site Description 4
2.2 Study Design 5
2.3 Field Sampling Methods 5
2.4 Analytical Methods 5
2.5 Quality Control 6
2.6 Data Analysis 6
3.0 Results 6
3.1 Storm Events 6
3.1.1 Sampling Dates 6
3.1.2 Precipitation and Discharge 7
3.2 Surface Water Data 8
3.2.1 In Situ Data 8
3.2.2 Inorganic Water Chemistry 8
3.2.3 Organic Water Chemistry 9
4.0 Discussion 9
5.0 Conclusions 11
6.0 References 12
Tables 14
Figures 22
Appendix A: Analytical Methods, Reporting Limits and WQS 24
Appendix B: Discharge Graphs 27
Project ID #15-0425 Proctor Creek Watershed Monitoring Addendum: Stormwater Report Page 3 of 33
-------
1.0 Introduction
The Proctor Creek Watershed Monitoring study was designed to provide baseline data for water quality
parameters throughout the Proctor Creek watershed. The primary goals were to assess current surface
water conditions, during both baseflow and stormflow, and to identify any constituents which may exceed
water quality standards. Baseflow sampling events included in situ water quality measurements, surface
water and sediment sampling for chemical parameters, stream discharge calculations, macroinvertebrate
and habitat assessments, and fish tissue analyses. Fifteen locations were monitored quarterly for two years,
in order to account for potential seasonal and/or inter-annual variability, and to establish a sufficient
database for statistical analyses and modeling efforts. Results of the quarterly monitoring efforts and
biological sampling events are provided in the Proctor Creek Watershed Monitoring Summary Report
(USEPA 2018b).
The storm water sampling component of this study was included to characterize changes in water quality
with increased discharge during storm events, compared to baseflow conditions. This component was
conducted by the United States Geological Survey (USGS) with EPA funds associated with an amendment
to the Interagency Agreement established for installation and maintenance of two stream gauging stations
in Proctor Creek. Additional work performed under the amendment included both field collection and
laboratory analysis of stormwater samples from six precipitation events between July 2017 and October
2018. All data were collected following the study design, sampling methods, and quality assurance
procedures detailed in an addendum to the Proctor Creek Monitoring Study Quality Assurance Project
Plan (USEPA 2017). Results of the stormwater sampling events are provided in this report.
2.0 Methods
2.1 Site Description
The Proctor Creek watershed (HUC 031300020101) is located entirely within the City of Atlanta in Fulton
County, GA. Its headwaters begin near the city center, then the stream flows northwest for approximately
9 miles to its confluence with the Chattahoochee River just west of Interstate-285 (Figure 1). The
Chattahoochee joins the Flint River at the Georgia-Florida border to form the Apalachicola, then drains
across the Florida panhandle to the Gulf of Mexico.
Multiple types of point and nonpoint source pollution exist throughout the Proctor Creek watershed, which
drains approximately 10,000 acres of land. The headwaters, most of which are either piped underground
or channelized aboveground, receive urban runoff from the west side of downtown Atlanta, including
large complexes such as the Atlanta University Center, the Georgia World Congress Center, the Philips
Arena and the Mercedes-Benz Stadium. Two combined sewer overflow (CSO) facilities are located just
west of downtown: North Avenue CSO and the now-decommissioned Greensferry CSO. Norfolk
Southern railroad runs along the northern boundary of the watershed, with a large freight yard near the
mid-point of Proctor Creek. Several landfills, automotive salvage yards, and illegal trash dumps are
located throughout the basin. There are also dense residential and commercial neighborhoods with high
proportions of impervious surface, as well as industrial areas at the downstream end of the watershed
(ARC 2009).
Project ID #15-0425
Proctor Creek Watershed Monitoring Addendum: Stormwater Report
Page 4 of 33
-------
2.2 Study Design
A partnership with USGS was initiated by EPA in September 2015 for stream gauge operations during
the first year of the monitoring study, which was continued until the conclusion of stormwater sampling
at the end of October 2018. In addition to the existing gauge at Jackson Parkway (#02336526), a second
was installed at a previously-gauged location on Hortense Way (#02336517) and a third was installed at
Spring Street (#023365218) on the largest tributary, which flows into Proctor Creek from the south (Figure
1). These stations profiled discharge from the upper watershed, the lower watershed below the confluence
of the largest tributary, as well as that tributary. Continuous water level and discharge data were collected
at each of the gauges, with precipitation and in situ parameters (temperature, pH, specific conductance,
dissolved oxygen and turbidity) recorded at the Jackson Parkway gauge only.
Stormwater samples for chemical analysis were collected at the three gauge locations (Table 1) during
rain events, using refrigerated Teledyne ISCO autosamplers, with the goal of capturing the event from the
starting point through at least two-thirds of the falling limb of the hydrograph. For these purposes, a rain
event is defined as a minimum of 0.3 inches of rain in the watershed following a dry period of at least 72
hours. Three events were targeted during the 'winter' season (November-April) and three during the
'summer' season (May-October). The Spring Street location was sampled less frequently, since previous
data had shown fewer parameters of concern in that tributary during baseflow conditions. Storm sampling
is subject to multiple factors, including but not limited to budget, personnel, equipment, and weather
conditions. Therefore, several events were not captured concurrently at all stations or were captured only
partially, in addition to the six complete sampling events across seasons. However, all data are included
in this report, with comparisons made between or among stations where concurrent data are available.
2.3 Field Sampling Methods
All samples and field measurements were collected according to the USGS National Field Manual for the
Collection of Water-Quality Data (USGS, various dates). Autosamplers were deployed at the beginning
of each storm event and programmed to collect flow-weighted aliquots to yield a single composite sample.
Each composite sample was collected in a single glass container and kept refrigerated in the dark until
homogenized and subsampled for individual analyte groups. All sampling equipment and bottles were
pre-cleaned according to procedures listed in Chapter A4 of the USGS Field Manual, with cleaning agents
appropriate for target analytes. Samples were preserved, handled and shipped according to procedures
listed in Chapter A5 of the USGS Field Manual. Table 2 lists all parameters collected during this study,
as well as field or laboratory methods used for each analyte group.
2.4 Analytical Methods
All chemical analyses were performed by USGS at the National Water Quality Laboratory in Denver, CO,
in accordance with their Quality Management System (QMS; Maloney 2005). This laboratory is certified
under the National Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program. Procedures for such requirements
as test method validation, equipment calibration and standards, quality control and assurance, laboratory
decontamination, waste disposal, and corrective actions are specified in the QMS. A complete list of
analytes, with associated methods, analyte-specific reporting limits, and state water quality criteria, is
provided in Appendix A.
Project ID #15-0425
Proctor Creek Watershed Monitoring Addendum: Stormwater Report
Page 5 of 33
-------
2.5 Quality Control
Quality control (QC) activities performed with field operations are described in the USGS Field Manual
(USGS, various dates). Field QC samples included bottle blanks for each analyte group prior to the start
of sampling, then an equipment rinse blank for each of the three autosamplers used during the study.
Additionally, one field duplicate was collected for each parameter, with duplicates staggered by parameter
across sampling dates due to limited volume in the composite sample. Laboratory QC activities include
use of techniques such as blanks, matrix spikes, surrogates, second column confirmation, laboratory
control samples, and/or initial and continuing calibration verifications, as described in Appendix B of the
Quality Management System (Maloney 2005).
2.6 Data Analysis
Water chemistry data were compared to those criteria in Georgia's Water Quality Standards (WQS)
applicable to Proctor Creek, which has a designated use of Fishing. WQS include freshwater aquatic life
criteria at both chronic and acute exposure levels, calculated using hardness concentrations at each station
and conversion formulae for total recoverable metals where applicable, as well as standards which apply
at discharge above 7-day, 10-year minimum flow conditions (7Q10) and above annual average flow
conditions (Ga. Comp. R. & Regs. r. 391-3-6-.03). Since Proctor Creek is not used as a drinking water
source, water chemistry data were not compared to state drinking water standards. Precipitation data were
obtained from the USGS rain gauges at Hortense Way and Jackson Parkway, available online from the
USGS National Water Information System interface at http://waterdata.usgs.gov. Total rainfall at each
station was summed over the course of each storm event.
Spearman's Rank correlations were calculated to determine the strength of relationships between relevant
continuous variables. A surrogate value of half the reporting limit was used for non-detects in dissolved
phosphorus, total organic carbon, and total suspended solids. All other non-detects were omitted from
correlations, rather than using a surrogate value, since many parameters were reported as estimates below
the reporting limit and reporting limits were sometimes different across dates. Although some sampling
dates included data collected at two or three locations in the same watershed, these data points were treated
as independent observations for statistical purposes, as each varied in the timing of collection as well as
hydrological parameters. Data were analyzed using the statistical software R, version 3.6.2 (R Core Team
2019), and are reported as Spearman's p at a significance level ofp < 0.01.
3.0 Results
3.1 Storm Events
3.1.1 Sampling Dates
Samples were collected between July 2017 and October 2018, with baseflow data collected at all three
stations at the beginning of the study and at both Jackson and Hortense at the conclusion (Table 3). A total
of eleven storm events were captured, with one at all three stations, five at Jackson and Hortense
concurrently, and two at Spring and Hortense concurrently. Each event was targeted to sample the rising
Project ID #15-0425
Proctor Creek Watershed Monitoring Addendum: Stormwater Report
Page 6 of 33
-------
limb of the hydrograph, and at least part of the falling limb, when possible. This was typically a collection
window of several hours, but total sample time varied according to field conditions and sampling logistics.
Furthermore, the sampling periods for stations sampled concurrently were typically offset due to the time
required to travel to each station to set up and break down equipment. It was not always possible to begin
collections at the onset of a storm, or to capture the peak discharge. In one case, the first wave of a large
storm event (10/10/18) was sampled at Jackson, while the latter portion of the storm was sampled the next
day at both Jackson and Hortense, which allowed for comparisons between the beginning and end of the
event at the Jackson station. Graphs of discharge data from the Jackson gauge, provided in Appendix B,
illustrate the unique hydrologic conditions for each storm event, as well as indicate the collection start
time for each location sampled during that event.
3.1.2 Precipitation and Discharge
Total precipitation amounts, stream stage statistics, and mean discharge for each sampling event are
summarized in Table 3. Total precipitation includes precipitation amounts from the previous day as well
as the day of sampling, summarized from the Jackson station only. Maximum stream stage and mean
discharge data were obtained for the day of sampling; however, maximum stage data were not available
for Spring, so stage data are provided from measurements recorded during sample collection. The dry
period was calculated as the number of consecutive days with less than 0.3" of precipitation between storm
events. For example, the event sampled on 2/7/18 occurred approximately 72 hours after the previous
storm, which is shown as a dry period of 2 days.
Additional precipitation and discharge data are shown in Table 4, which includes precipitation totals
specific to Hortense. Since Spring did not have a rain gauge, precipitation data from Jackson were applied
to Spring, as the two stations are less than a mile apart. Stream stage and discharge readings were also
recorded at the time of each sampling event at Spring and Hortense, but were only recorded at Jackson for
baseflow samples and on 2/26/18. Therefore, mean data from the collection period are shown for the
remaining sampling events at Jackson, as well as for one missing stage measurement at Hortense
(10/26/18) and two missing discharge measurements at Spring (7/31/17, 8/31/17).
Total precipitation was correlated with both mean discharge (p=0.80) and maximum stage (p=0.76).
However, individual analytical parameters were more strongly correlated with discrete discharge,
turbidity, total suspended solids (TSS), and suspended sediment (SS) (Table 5). This was likely because
these measurements were more representative of hydrologic conditions during the actual time period
sampled, rather than metrics summarizing the entire storm event, since only a subset of each storm was
captured.
To verify that annual average (or higher) flow conditions were present during the storm events, annual
average discharge was calculated for Jackson and Hortense, whereas annual discharge data are not
available for Spring. Annual average discharge is approximately 18 cfs at Jackson, calculated over 14
years of data (2005-2018), and approximately 11 cfs at Hortense, calculated over 3 years of data (2004-
2006). Mean discharge at each station was above the associated annual average value during all storm
events sampled. Thus, water quality criteria applicable at or above annual average flow are relevant to
stormwater data collected during this study at Jackson and Hortense, and it is reasonable to infer that they
are also relevant at Spring.
Project ID #15-0425
Proctor Creek Watershed Monitoring Addendum: Stormwater Report
Page 7 of 33
-------
3.2 Surface Water Data
3.2.1 In Situ Data
A summary of data from in situ measurements is provided in Table 4. Total suspended solids (TSS) and
suspended sediment (SS) data are also included here, as they are closely related to turbidity measurements
(p=0.90 and 0.96, respectively). Specific conductance ranged from 52 to 280 |iS/cm across stations, with
values less than 200 |iS/cm during all but one storm event. Turbidity ranged from approximately 22-321
FNU during storms and <10 FNU during baseflow. Overall, values for these parameters were generally
higher at Jackson than Hortense or Spring. Measurements of pH were circumneutral, from 6.31-7.62, with
one reading of 8.1 during baseflow conditions at Jackson. Water temperature and dissolved oxygen (DO)
were measured at the Jackson station as part of the routine monitoring at that site, shown as daily means,
whereas these parameters were only measured at Hortense and Spring at the time of sample collection.
Temperature and DO varied throughout the sampling period according to season, and there were no
excursions above or below water quality criteria.
3.2.2 Inorganic Water Chemistry
Nutrients were relatively similar across or between stations on shared sampling dates (Table 6, Figure 3).
Total nitrogen (TN) data were variable compared to baseflow data from this study as well as mean values
from quarterly baseflow data collected in 2015-2017 (USEPA 2018b). However, total phosphorus (TP)
data were consistently, and often several-fold, higher than baseflow concentrations. Both nutrients were
more strongly related to discrete discharge measurements (TN, p=0.50; TP, p=0.68) and turbidity levels
(TN, p=0.68; TP, p=0.94), which were measured during sample collection rather than summed or averaged
over the course of the event, than with precipitation totals or mean discharge. Nutrient relationships with
total suspended solids (TSS) and suspended sediment (SS) were similar to those with turbidity. Total
organic carbon (TOC) was also significantly correlated with measurements of discrete discharge and
suspended particulates. As expected, the relative fractions of organic nitrogen (TON) and particulate
phosphorus (PP) also increased during storms, compared to baseflow (61% vs. 23% TON; 71% PP vs.
58%).
The following metals were all below the reporting limit on all sampling dates: barium, beryllium,
bromide, cobalt, mercury, molybdenum, nickel, selenium, silver, tin and yttrium. Several metals were
often above water quality criteria for protection of aquatic life, which vary according to hardness
concentrations. Copper and zinc were above both chronic and acute criteria on several sampling dates,
and cadmium and lead were above either the chronic or acute criterion depending on the date (Table 7).
However, there were also some results for cadmium and copper that were below reporting limits that were
higher than some of the calculated criteria, so potential exceedances could not be assessed for those
samples. On 10/8/17 at Jackson, chromium was slightly above the chronic criterion for Chromium III,
calculated to be 11 |ig/L compared to a value of 19 |ig/L for that sample, but the analytical method does
not distinguish among the different forms of chromium. Thallium was above the annual average criterion
of 0.47 |ig/L on 10/23/17 at Spring and 10/26/18 at Hortense. This criterion is below the typical reporting
limit of 2.0 |ig/L for thallium, but detections were identified below that level for most dates, including
two baseflow samples to which the standard does not apply. Other classical parameters and metals were
present throughout the watershed, but do not have associated WQS (Table 7).
Project ID #15-0425
Proctor Creek Watershed Monitoring Addendum: Stormwater Report
Page 8 of 33
-------
As with nutrients, many metals were more correlated with turbidity, TSS and SS than with precipitation
or discharge. In particular, aluminum, iron, lead, manganese, titanium and zinc were all strongly linked to
increased SS (Table 5). Other significant correlations included antimony, arsenic and vanadium. In
contrast, other analytes that comprise the bulk of specific conductance measurements were higher during
baseflow, then relatively similar in concentration across storm events. These included chloride, fluoride,
calcium, magnesium, potassium and sodium. Neither specific conductance nor these component ions were
correlated with parameters related to precipitation, discharge, or the various measurements of suspended
material.
3.2.3 Organic Water Chemistry
A full suite of organic analytes, which included pesticides, PCBs, and semi-volatile organics, were
analyzed for each sampling event. In many cases, the minimum reporting limits (MRLs) were higher than
the respective water quality criteria. However, some compounds were identified below the reporting limit
on certain dates, and a subset of those were above annual average criteria. Summaries of detected
compounds are provided in Table 8 (Pesticides and PCBs) and Table 9 (Semi-Volatiles). These included
the pesticides alpha-chlordane, gamma-chlordane, dieldrin, heptachlor and DDT, as well as the PCB
Aroclors 1254 and 1260. Each of these compounds was above the 7Q10 criterion on at least one sampling
date, with the PCB criterion applicable to Total Aroclor concentrations. Alpha-BHC and DDE were above
the annual average criterion on one or two dates, respectively. The majority of semi-volatile compounds
detected are those classified as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), common in automotive fluids
and road runoff, seven of which were above the annual average criterion on at least one storm sampling
date: benzo(a)anthracene, benzo(a)pyrene, benzo(b)fluoranthene, benzo(k)fluoranthene, chrysene,
dibenzo(a,h)anthracene and indeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene. Six of these were above the annual average criteria
on several dates. On other dates, the reporting limit was five times higher and/or these parameters were
not analyzed, so additional occurrences may have been missed.
It was difficult to analyze organic parameters in relation to storm metrics, because of patchy detections
which were often below the reporting limit. A few sampling events were also missing semi-volatile data,
including all parameters on 1/28/18 and a subset of parameters on 6/26/18 and 10/10/18. Furthermore,
reporting limits for some parameters varied according to batch quality control or other factors. The
laboratory may not have been able to quantify below the reporting limit for certain batches, so there is a
possibility that some low-level concentrations were not identified. Regardless, there were no detections
of any organic parameters in samples collected during baseflow, except low concentrations of diesel range
organics below the reporting limit of 200 |ig/L on 10/30/18. Also, concentrations of semi-volatile organics
were generally higher at Jackson than at Hortense and/or Spring, and higher at Hortense than Spring, when
detected during the same sampling event.
4.0 Discussion
The sampling method employed to collect stormwater data provided an average concentration of each
parameter during the sampling period, which was variable depending on the size and duration of the storm
event. Sampling logistics also affected the sampling window, as it is difficult to capture events when they
span hours outside of typical field work schedules. Therefore, the portion and amount of the storm sampled
was different for each event, which complicates making direct comparisons across events. For example,
the 'first flush' of contaminants from surface runoff, which occurs during the initial period of a storm in
Project ID #15-0425
Proctor Creek Watershed Monitoring Addendum: Stormwater Report
Page 9 of 33
-------
the rising limb of the hydrograph, was captured for some events but not others. Characteristics of
individual storm events also differ according to intensity and duration, which causes inherent variation
even among consistent sampling windows. Furthermore, the period of dryness between rain events affects
the level of potential contaminants that build up on impervious surfaces, which are then washed into
receiving waters during the next storm (Horowitz 2009).
Evidence of these differences was present in the dataset. When the sample captured a steep rise in the
hydrograph, indicating heavy rain, concentrations of most parameters were higher (e.g., 10/28/17, 2/7/18,
3/11/18, 9/26/18). When the sample was collected after some rain had already occurred, or there was a
more gradual rise in the hydrograph, concentrations were lower (e.g., 8/31/17, 9/11/17, 2/26/18). Notably,
one relatively intense rain event was sampled at Jackson during both the beginning and the end, on October
10-11, 2018. Concentrations of most parameters were much higher on October 10 than October 11. Also,
nutrients were generally higher upstream (Hortense) than downstream (Jackson) when concentrations
were elevated at the beginning of a storm, whereas concentrations declined overall and were more similar
between stations towards the end of a storm.
Additionally, certain parameters that were summarized for each event, like total precipitation, maximum
stage and mean discharge, had less relevance than those measured at the actual sample collection time or
water chemistry data analyzed from the sample itself. Most analytes exhibited stronger correlations with
instantaneous discharge measurements than with mean discharge or total precipitation. However, the
strongest relationships were observed with suspended sediment, which was measured from the sample
and typically tracks closely with discharge, as streambed and bank sediments are transported in the water
column during high flow. Suspended sediment includes silts and clays, which have high surface areas and
chemical properties that allow some species of nutrients, many trace metals, and certain organic
compounds to adsorb to them (Horowitz 1985, Warren et al. 2003). Turbidity and TSS were both similarly,
but less significantly, correlated with the same parameters as suspended sediment.
While this study did not distinguish between dissolved and sediment-associated contaminants,
concentrations of nutrients and metals were higher during storms and strongly correlated with suspended
sediment. The most significant correlations occurred with total phosphorus, total organic nitrogen, and the
metals aluminum, arsenic, iron, manganese, lead, titanium, vanadium and zinc, many of which are known
to adsorb to sediments (Horowitz 2008). These metals were all several-fold higher during storm conditions
compared to baseflow and likely originated from the areas where concentrations were high during the
quarterly monitoring (USEPA 2018b). During baseflow conditions, lead was consistently higher in
tributaries at Lindsay Street, the North Avenue CSO outfall (North CSO) and the West Highlands
neighborhood, as well as the main channel of Proctor Creek at and below Hortense Way (Figure 2). Iron
was primarily elevated at North CSO and Lillian Cooper Park, manganese was high at North CSO and
West Highlands, and zinc reached the highest concentrations at Lindsay Street. Other metals were low or
below detection during baseflow (e.g., arsenic, vanadium), or generally increased from upstream to
downstream in Proctor Creek (e.g., aluminum, titanium). Aluminum, lead and zinc had also been elevated
during the quarterly monitoring period on two sample dates which followed rain events. Results of this
study were consistent with previous findings in the Atlanta area, where over 75% of the annual flux of
total phosphorus and many metals occurs in association with suspended sediment, and more than 90%
occurs during stormflow (Horowitz et al. 2008, Horowitz 2009).
Project ID #15-0425
Proctor Creek Watershed Monitoring Addendum: Stormwater Report
Page 10 of 33
-------
Copper, lead and zinc were above acute and/or chronic exposure criteria in the majority of stormwater
samples, whereas cadmium and thallium were above criteria less frequently. Chronic criteria are defined
as the "highest concentration of a pollutant to which aquatic life can be exposed for an extended period of
time (4 days) without deleterious effects" (Ga. Comp. R. & Regs. r. 391-3-6-.03(3)). Although it is
unlikely that exposure was maintained at these levels for more than 4 days, acute criteria provide exposure
limits for much shorter time periods (an average of one hour), so excursions above acute levels during
storm events are likely a concern for aquatic organisms. There is a current remediation effort by EPA to
remove lead-contaminated soils in the vicinity of the Lindsay Street neighborhood, from historical
smelting operations and other industrial sources (Miller 2020), which will hopefully reduce lead runoff
into Proctor Creek.
Of the targeted organic compounds, 10 pesticides, 2 PCB Aroclors, and 19 semi-volatile compounds were
detected in stormwater samples. Fourteen of these were above 7Q10 and/or annual average criteria on one
or more dates. Dieldrin and both alpha- and gamma-chlordane had been found at many locations in the
watershed during baseflow quarterly monitoring, on the three sample dates that included surface water
analysis of organic compounds (USEPA 2018b). These, as well as most of the remaining organics detected
during storm events, had also been found in sediment samples collected in September 2015, largely in the
upper watershed adjacent to downtown Atlanta (USEPA 2016). As with many of the elevated metals,
nearly all organic compounds identified in this study are commonly associated with sediment (USEPA
1997, Warren et al. 2003). Thus, contaminants are entering Proctor Creek from various sources in the
watershed, but also become bound to sediments that are then resuspended during storm events. Sediment-
associated contaminants can be toxic to benthic organisms as well as bioaccumulate in the food chain to
higher trophic levels, where they can threaten wildlife and impact human health (USEPA 2000). During
fish sampling events associated with the quarterly monitoring study, dieldrin, heptachlor epoxide and PCB
Aroclor 1254 were all found at harmful concentrations in fish tissue, prompting fish consumption
advisories for several species in Proctor Creek (USEPA 2018a, GAEPD 2018).
5.0 Conclusions
This component of the monitoring study was included to assess water quality during storm conditions, as
well as compare stormwater data to the baseflow data collected quarterly in Proctor Creek from September
2015 to July 2017 (USEPA 2018b). Results presented here expand on and elucidate findings of the
baseflow quarterly monitoring effort. Nutrients, especially organic nitrogen and particulate phosphorus,
were elevated above baseflow concentrations during storm events, as were 10 different metals, especially
those known to adhere to sediments. Of the metals, copper, lead and zinc were frequently detected above
the acute exposure criteria for protection of aquatic life. Potentially harmful concentrations of
organochlorine pesticides and PCBs were also detected during several storm events. Nearly all of the
constituents found at higher concentrations in stormwater were identified as probable contaminants during
the baseflow monitoring study, in surface water, sediment and/or fish tissue samples collected throughout
the watershed.
The parameters found at elevated concentrations in Proctor Creek are characteristic of urban streams
across the country, which typically have higher nutrients, pesticides and PAHs (Paul & Meyer 2001), as
well as a range of heavy metals (e.g., Sansalone & Buchberger 1997). Urban environments contain a
mixture of high-density residential, commercial and industrial areas, with large portions of impervious
surface in the form of buildings, roads and parking lots. In Atlanta, contaminants such as automotive
Project ID #15-0425
Proctor Creek Watershed Monitoring Addendum: Stormwater Report
Page 11 of 33
-------
fluids, exhaust, fertilizers and pesticides can enter Proctor Creek via surface runoff from the urban center,
as well as from the small tributaries draining a variety of land uses in the watershed. During periods of
lower flow, sediment-associated contaminants are also stored in the streambed, and can become
resuspended during the next rain event. Thus, storms are linked to both introduction and transport of many
contaminants in the watershed. Stormwater sampling is therefore an important component of water quality
assessments, especially in urban streams such as Proctor Creek.
6.0 References
ARC. 2009. Visual field survey for Proctor Creek impaired stream segment in the Chattahoochee River
basin. Atlanta Regional Commission, Atlanta, GA.
GAEPD. 2018. Guidelines for Eating Fish from Georgia Waters. Watershed Protection Branch,
Environmental Protection Division, Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Atlanta, GA.
Horowitz, A.J. 1985. A primer on trace metal-sediment chemistry. United States Geological Survey Water
Supply Paper 2277. USGS, Alexandria, VA.
Horowitz, A.J. 2008. Contaminated Sediments: Inorganic constituents. In M.G. Anderson (Ed.),
Encyclopedia of Hydrological Sciences. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/0470848944.
Horowitz, A.J. 2009. Monitoring suspended sediments and associated chemical constituents in urban
environments: lessons from the city of Atlanta, Georgia, USA water quality monitoring program.
Journal of Soils and Sediments 9:342-363.
Horowitz, A.J., K.A. Elrick and J.J. Smith. 2008. Monitoring urban impacts on suspended sediment, trace
element, and nutrient fluxes within the City of Atlanta, Georgia, USA: program design,
methodological considerations, and initial results. Hydrological Processes 22:1473-1496.
Maloney, T.J., ed. 2005. Quality management system. U.S. Geological Survey National Water Quality
Laboratory: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2005-1263, version 1.3, 9 November 2005.
Miller, A. 2020. Removal of unsafe lead begins in contaminated Atlanta neighborhood. The Atlanta
Journal-Constitution, January 27, 2020. https://www.aic.com/news/local/removal-unsafe-lead-
begins-contaminated-atlanta-neighborhood/TOimfpBR.inKWcHlKMBP8CI/
Paul, M.J. and J.L. Meyer. 2001. Streams in the urban landscape. Annual Review of Ecology and
Systematics 32:333-365.
R Core Team. 2019. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. RFoundation for Statistical
Computing, Vienna, Austria. ISBN 3-900051-07-0, URL http://www.R-proiect.org/.
Sansalone, J.J. and S.G. Buchberger. 1997. Partitioning and first flush of metals in urban roadway storm
water. Journal of Environmental Engineering 123:134-143.
Project ID #15-0425
Proctor Creek Watershed Monitoring Addendum: Stormwater Report
Page 12 of 33
-------
USEPA. 1997. The incidence and severity of sediment contamination in surface waters of the United
States, Volume 1: National Sediment Quality Survey, EPA-823-R-97-006. Office of Science and
Technology, Office of Water, Washington, D.C.
USEPA. 2000. Methods for measuring the toxicity and bioaccumulation of sediment-associated
contaminants with freshwater invertebrates, Second Edition, EPA-600-R-99-064. Office of
Research and Development, Office of Water, Washington, D.C.
USEPA. 2016. Proctor Creek Watershed Monitoring: First Quarterly Sampling Event. Final Report.
SESD Project ID #15-0425. Region 4, SESD, Athens, GA.
USEPA. 2017. Proctor Creek Watershed Monitoring Quality Assurance Project Plan. Addendum. SESD
Project ID #15-0425. Region 4, SESD, Athens, GA.
USEPA. 2018a. Proctor Creek Fish Tissue Final Report. SESD Project ID #17-0445. Region 4, SESD,
Athens, GA.
USEPA. 2018b. Proctor Creek Watershed Monitoring Final Report. SESD Project ID #15-0425. Region
4, SESD, Athens, GA.
USGS. Various dates. National field manual for the collection of water-quality data: U.S. Geological
Survey techniques of water-resources investigations, Book 9, Chapters A1-A10. available online
at http://piibs.water.iisgs.gov/twri9A.
Warren, N., I.J. Allan, J.E. Carter, W.A. House and A. Parker. 2003. Pesticides and other micro-organic
contaminants in freshwater sedimentary environments - a review. Applied Geochemistry 18:159-
194.
Project ID #15-0425
Proctor Creek Watershed Monitoring Addendum: Stormwater Report
Page 13 of 33
-------
Table 1: Stormwater sampling locations at USGS gauging stations.
Station ID
Description of Location
GPS Coordinates (DD)
Latitude
Longitude
Spring
Proctor Creek Tributary at Spring Street
33.78849
-84.46597
Hortense
Proctor Creek at Hortense Place
33.77562
-84.44072
Jackson
Proctor Creek at James Jackson Parkway
33.79461
-84.47417
Table 2: Data collected at USGS gauging stations during storm events.
Parameter
Analyte Group
Analytical Methods
surface water
chemistry
nutrients
EPA 350.1, EPA 351.2, EPA 353.2,
EPA 365.2, SM 531 OB
classicals, hardness, total suspended
solids, suspended sediment
EPA 300.0, SM 2340C, SM 2540D,
ASTM D3977-97
total recoverable metals
EPA 200.7, EPA 200.8,
EPA 245.1, EPA 6010C
pesticides and PCBs
SW 808 IB, SW 8082A
semi-volatile organics
SW 8015D, SW 8270D
in situ water
quality*
temperature, pH, specific conductance,
dissolved oxygen, turbidity
data recorded by USGS
gauging station
surface water flow
stream stage,
stream discharge, precipitation**
*In situ data continuously recorded at Jackson station only. In situ data at Spring and Hortense collected manually at time of sampling.
**No precipitation data collected at Spring.
Project ID #15-0425 Proctor Creek Watershed Monitoring Addendum: Stormwater Report
Page 14 of 33
-------
Table 3: Precipitation, stage and discharge (Q) data for each sampling event at Jackson, Hortense and
Spring. Data highlighted in blue indicate a baseflow sample, while dates highlighted in green indicate
samples collected during the rising limb and/or peak of the hydrograph. Precipitation data are from the
Jackson rain gauge, and include precipitation amounts from the previous day. Maximum stage data were
not available for Spring; gauge height data were obtained at the time of sample collection.
Dry
Total
Peak
Peak
Jackson
Hortense
Spring
Sample
Period
Precip.
Time
Q
Max Gauge
Mean
Max Gauge
Mean
Height at
Mean
Date
(days)
(inches)
(HH:MM)
(cfs)
Height (ft)
Q (cfs)
Height (ft)
Q (cfs)
Sample (ft)
Q (cfs)
7/28/17
0.01
3.42
6
7/31/17
0.00
1.12
2
4.14
0
8/31/17
21
1.40
8:15
122
3.15
20
5.27
8
9/11/17
5
2.54
18:15
1090
8.37
270
10/8/17
25
1.87
12:30
503
6.73
92
10/23/17
14
1.40
12:30
876
5.85
51
5.98
23
10/28/17
4
0.69
19:45
189
5.32
29
1/28/18
5
1.23
15:00
379
6.26
95
2/7/18
2
1.16
11:15
919
7.96
155
5.14
83
6.16
33
2/26/18
13
0.91
5:45
225
5.53
45
3.21
21
3/11/18
9
0.85
10:15
271
5.77
66
3.30
27
9/26/18
34
0.51
19:00
276
5.78
25
4.44
19
10/10/18
11
3.54
20:30
951
8.67
164
10/11/18
0
4.62
2:15
3040
11.61
345
8.01
96
10/26/18
13
0.69
11:45
109
4.75
34
2.48
16
10/30/18
0.00
3.07
2
1.17
2
Project ID #15-0425
Proctor Creek Watershed Monitoring Addendum: Stormwater Report
Page 15 of 33
-------
Table 4: In situ data, as well as total suspended solids (TSS) and suspended sediment (SS) data, for each
sampling event. Values with grey shading indicate that the parameter was not detected at or above that
reporting limit. Dates highlighted in blue indicate baseflow samples, whereas dates highlighted in green
indicate those samples which captured the rising limb and/or peak of the hydrograph.
Total
Stream
Water
Specific
Precip.
Stage
Discharge
Temp.
D.O.
PH
Cond.
Turbidity
TSS
SS
Date
Station
(inches)
(feet)
(cfs)
(°C)
(mg/L)
(S.U.)
(fiS/cm)
(FNU)
(mg/L)
(mg/L)
7/31/17
Spring
0
4.14
1
21.4
7.4
7.5
232
2
2
4
Hortense
0
1.11
2
22.5
7.8
7.5
245
2
2
3
7/28/17
Jackson
0
3.19
6
26.0
7.6
8.1
280
7
2
7
10/30/18
Hortense
0
1.27
2
13.3
10.4
7.4
239
3
2
4
Jackson
0
3.06
2
12.2
10.2
7.5
244
2
2
3
8/31/17
Spring
1.4
5.27
10
22.1
8.0
7.1
78
69
84
Hortense
1.0
2.10
38
22.3
7.9
6.9
71
31
46
9/11/17
Jackson
2.5
4.91
270
16.9
8.3
6.8
125
76
160
187
10/8/17
Jackson
1.9
4.20
92
22.4
6.6
7.1
113
302
1100
757
10/23/17
Spring
1.4
5.98
28
19.1
8.7
7.0
52
180
180
319
Hortense
1.4
2.56
79
20.1
8.1
7.1
68
61
55
116
10/28/17
Jackson
0.7
3.54
29
14.3
9.2
7.6
139
66
89
98
1/28/18
Jackson
1.2
4.43
95
10.6
10.1
7.4
276
34
52
66
Spring
1.2
6.16
102
12.2
10.2
7.4
56
110
45
172
2/7/18
Hortense
1.5
4.69
469
13.1
10.1
7.2
56
150
120
327
Jackson
1.2
4.53
155
11.2
10.0
7.6
126
242
74
602
2/26/18
Hortense
1.1
1.98
27
15.0
9.3
7.1
73
42
26
37
Jackson
0.9
3.94
81
15.9
9.0
7.1
91
42
39
41
3/11/18
Hortense
0.8
3.09
170
12.8
9.9
7.2
75
74
93
71
Jackson
0.9
4.17
66
12.5
9.6
7.2
122
131
240
9/26/18
Hortense
0.5
3.58
226
25.0
7.3
6.3
74
100
200
225
Jackson
0.5
3.47
25
24.0
6.9
6.7
164
202
320
524
10/10/18
Jackson
3.5
4.12
164
23.2
7.8
6.5
96
321
880
893
10/11/18
Hortense
4.4
1.67
14
22.5
7.7
6.7
110
22
8
15
Jackson
4.6
5.08
345
22.6
7.7
7.3
118
39
24
49
10/26/18
Hortense
1.0
1.61
50
13.0
9.7
7.5
77
42
52
59
Jackson
0.7
3.82
34
12.7
9.6
7.5
110
38
34
65
Project ID #15-0425
Proctor Creek Watershed Monitoring Addendum: Stormwater Report
Page 16 of 33
-------
Table 5: Spearman's Rank correlation data for relevant continuous variables. Values are Spearman's
Rho, with correlations significant at p < 0.01 highlighted in grey.
Total
Precip.
Discrete
Discharge
Mean
Discharge
Gauge
Height
Max Gauge
Height
Turbidity
Total
Suspended
Solids
Suspended
Sediment
Discrete Discharge
0.37
Mean Discharge
0.80
0.62
Gauge Height
0.40
0.53
0.50
Max Gauge Height
0.76
0.44
0.93
0.64
Turbidity
0.48
0.73
0.55
0.63
0.54
Total Suspended Solids
0.41
0.68
0.43
0.50
0.47
0.90
Suspended Sediment
0.53
0.74
0.58
0.61
0.58
0.96
0.94
Total Nitrogen
0.26
0.50
0.42
0.40
0.48
0.68
0.66
0.72
Total Organic Nitrogen
0.17
0.72
0.36
0.49
0.46
0.83
0.82
0.87
Nitrate/Nitrite
-0.44
-0.46
-0.21
-0.39
-0.05
-0.58
-0.56
-0.59
Ammonia
0.06
-0.05
-0.37
0.23
-0.58
0.08
0.08
0.03
Total Phosphorus
0.46
0.68
0.45
0.54
0.47
0.94
0.94
0.95
Dissolved Phosphorus
0.52
0.33
0.33
0.11
0.27
0.42
0.34
0.39
Total Organic Carbon
0.45
0.60
0.57
0.58
0.65
0.68
0.65
0.71
Sp. Conductance
-0.46
-0.38
-0.21
-0.20
0.01
-0.44
-0.36
-0.45
Chloride
-0.62
-0.21
-0.37
-0.23
-0.32
-0.33
-0.25
-0.37
Fluoride
-0.11
0.07
0.01
-0.17
-0.15
-0.05
0.17
0.02
Sulfate
-0.44
-0.52
-0.33
-0.27
-0.16
-0.52
-0.39
-0.44
Aluminum
0.50
0.75
0.66
0.56
0.62
0.94
0.87
0.93
Antimony
0.36
0.61
0.45
0.42
0.48
0.71
0.60
0.76
Arsenic
0.17
0.48
0.36
0.50
0.49
0.86
0.80
0.90
Cadmium
0.35
-0.49
0.22
0.71
0.67
0.59
0.36
0.38
Calcium
-0.42
-0.43
-0.23
-0.16
0.02
-0.39
-0.33
-0.40
Chromium
0.46
0.14
0.42
0.41
0.52
0.75
0.55
0.81
Copper
-0.11
0.06
-0.07
-0.16
0.32
0.64
0.65
0.66
Iron
0.41
0.76
0.55
0.56
0.53
0.94
0.92
0.97
Lead
0.30
0.70
0.37
0.48
0.34
0.96
0.93
0.97
Magnesium
-0.30
-0.17
-0.04
-0.02
0.21
-0.02
0.01
0.01
Manganese
0.32
0.69
0.44
0.47
0.47
0.87
0.91
0.93
Potassium
0.11
0.04
0.24
0.16
0.48
0.26
0.25
0.39
Sodium
-0.42
-0.33
-0.20
-0.27
-0.03
-0.43
-0.35
-0.47
Strontium
-0.36
-0.49
-0.21
-0.20
0.05
-0.42
-0.38
-0.44
Thallium
-0.12
-0.39
-0.31
-0.08
-0.14
0.01
0.05
-0.16
Titanium
0.20
0.69
0.43
0.47
0.45
0.89
0.84
0.95
Vanadium
-0.12
0.01
-0.14
0.17
0.09
0.92
0.74
0.95
Zinc
0.05
0.69
0.30
0.47
0.35
0.83
0.82
0.87
Project ID #15-0425
Proctor Creek Watershed Monitoring Addendum: Stormwater Report
Page 17 of 33
-------
Table 6: Analytical data for nutrients and classical parameters. All values are shown in mg/L. Highlighted values indicate that the
parameter was not detected above that reporting limit. Values that were above the detection limit but below the reporting limit are shown,
where available. Dates highlighted in blue indicate baseflow samples, whereas dates highlighted in green indicate those samples which
captured the rising limb and/or peak of the hydrograph.
Nitrate/
Nitrogen
Phosphorus
Organic
Hardness
Ammonia
Nitrite
Organic
Total
Dissolved
Total
Carbon
Chloride
Fluoride
Sulfate
(as CaC03)
7/31/17
Spring
0.1
0.80
0.40
1.20
0.023
0.052
2.9
16
0.29
16
80
Hortense
0.06
0.81
0.21
1.08
0.005
0.021
2
14
0.32
25
84
7/28/17
Jackson
0.1
0.80
0.27
1.07
0.005
0.015
2.5
12
0.31
33
100
10/30/18
Hortense
0.1
1.40
0.20
1.60
0.017
0.026
1.7
14
0.45
24
88
Jackson
0.22
0.86
0.27
1.08
0.023
0.013
2.1
12
0.41
27
88
8/31/17
Spring
0.23
0.28
0.64
1.15
0.050
0.240
10
2.8
0.5
7.4
160
Hortense
0.17
0.34
0.57
1.08
0.042
0.140
6.7
2.7
0.47
22
220
9/11/17
Jackson
0.1
1.20
0.032
0.320
15
5.5
0.1
11
270
10/8/17
Jackson
0.1
0.15
3.80
4.05
0.042
0.600
8.8
4.9
0.5
11
5
10/23/17
Spring
0.89
0.30
0.51
1.70
0.056
0.410
8.4
0.9
0.5
6.0
24
Hortense
0.04
0.29
0.96
1.29
0.053
0.270
8.3
2.6
0.5
4.6
40
10/28/17
Jackson
0.05
0.50
0.63
1.18
0.030
0.130
8.9
5.9
0.5
13
44
1/28/18
Jackson
0.04
0.67
0.66
1.37
0.011
0.110
5.4
49
0.54
16
72
Spring
0.07
0.38
1.13
1.58
0.065
0.200
9.6
2.3
0.34
4.2
48
2/7/18
Hortense
0.26
0.19
1.44
1.89
0.052
0.290
4.9
6.3
0.31
2.3
52
Jackson
0.06
0.52
2.24
2.82
0.031
0.390
11
7.6
0.37
11
48
2/26/18
Hortense
0.1
0.26
0.54
0.90
0.050
0.120
6.0
4.9
0.09
4.3
28
Jackson
0.1
0.27
0.27
0.64
0.035
0.120
6.0
5.0
0.10
5.9
28
3/11/18
Hortense
0.12
0.31
1.08
1.51
0.048
0.220
6.3
8.3
0.48
4.4
20
Jackson
0.06
0.51
1.54
2.11
0.036
0.310
14
7.5
0.42
11
40
9/26/18
Hortense
0.20
0.55
2.50
3.25
0.160
0.400
15
3.7
0.5
5.2
40
Jackson
0.02
0.58
3.80
4.38
0.052
0.490
11
8.8
0.5
16
60
10/10/18
Jackson
0.08
0.36
2.10
2.56
0.049
0.440
8.9
3.9
0.5
8.4
60
10/11/18
Hortense
0.02
0.84
0.49
1.35
0.087
0.092
5.8
2.9
0.5
9.7
40
Jackson
0.1
0.92
0.44
1.42
0.089
0.110
33
2.2
0.36
13
48
10/26/18
Hortense
0.09
0.40
0.39
0.88
0.064
0.120
5.4
3.7
0.5
6.0
76
Jackson
0.13
0.45
0.37
0.95
0.048
0.093
7.5
4.7
0.5
9.5
44
Project ID #15-0425
Proctor Creek Watershed Monitoring Addendum: Stormwater Report
Page 18 of 33
-------
Table 7: Analytical data for total recoverable metals. All values are shown in |ig/L. Values highlighted in grey indicate that the
parameter was not detected above that reporting limit. Values highlighted in orange or yellow are above the corresponding acute or
chronic criterion for that parameter. Dates highlighted in blue indicate baseflow samples, whereas dates highlighted in green indicate
those samples which captured the rising limb and/or peak of the hydrograph.
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Cadmium
Calcium
Ch romium
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Potassium
Sodium
Strontium
Thallium
Titanium
Vanadium
Zinc
acute criteria
340
**
**
**
**
0.47*
**
chronic criteria
150
**
**
**
**
**
7/31/17
Spring
48
2.5
1.5
1
21000
10
100
500
0.54
3500
34
3800
17000
110
2
10
50
100
Hortense
57
2.5
1.5
1
25000
10
100
270
0.78
4500
27
4100
14000
100
2
10
50
100
7/28/17
Jackson
210
1.0
1.0
1
30000
10
100
290
0.97
4800
29
5800
15000
110
2
4.6
50
100
10/30/18
Hortense
51
5
3
2
23000
10
100
230
2
4600
23
4200
13000
110
0.52
1.9
50
19
Jackson
62
1.5
3
2
24000
10
100
160
2
4500
17
4000
13000
110
0.57
10
50
15
8/31/17
Spring
1600
1.9
1.0
1
8400
4
100
2100
16
1200
150
3700
3200
39
2
58
50
41
Hortense
1300
1.5
1.0
1
7800
6
100
2000
12
1300
130
3200
2900
33
0.18
67
50
55
9/11/17
Jackson
2.0
1.5
1
14000
8
16
6500
23
3100
440
4500
6600
61
2
240
12
79
10/8/17
Jackson
17000
2.8
3.9
0.7
17000
19
58
23000
96
6000
1200
8700
6300
72
0.40
870
41
300
10/23/17
Spring
9200
1.5
5.9
3.9
7800
6.9
24
8000
32
1900
230
4700
1600
33
3.6
290
16
120
Hortense
2600
2.2
1.3
1
8500
3.5
29
4100
21
1700
250
3900
3100
35
2
150
9.9
140
10/28/17
Jackson
1700
2.5
1.2
1
16000
2.1
17
2300
15
2900
170
3900
7000
65
2
65
50
310
1/28/18
Jackson
1.0
7.5
5
17000
2.2
100
2600
10
3000
150
4000
30000
70
0.31
97
50
46
Spring
5800
1.7
1.3
1
7100
6.8
19
5000
21
1400
130
3600
2600
29
0.24
180
13
110
2/7/18
Hortense
6600
3.0
2.0
1
5500
6
25
6200
44
1200
190
2800
5200
22
0.22
210
16
140
Jackson
13000
5.8
2.4
0.4
16000
15
40
14000
54
4200
510
5100
8000
69
0.38
580
31
230
2/26/18
Hortense
1.4
0.9
1
7100
10
100
1800
8.1
1000
56
2600
4700
28
2
65
50
26
Jackson
1.2
1.0
1
11000
1.9
100
2200
10
1800
90
3000
5300
46
0.18
71
50
88
3/11/18
Hortense
3600
1.5
1.1
0.3
7600
3.4
28
4800
20
1500
170
2400
6500
32
0.26
180
9.0
78
Jackson
5900
1.6
1.9
0.4
15000
6.8
31
8700
35
3400
460
3900
8000
65
0.29
310
13
140
9/26/18
Hortense
13000
1.7
2.4
0.3
7300
2.6
54
9300
43
1900
500
6400
3100
28
2
320
20
160
Jackson
19000
2.4
12
0.7
18000
13
68
20000
93
5000
1700
7800
8700
78
0.31
660
42
280
10/10/18
Jackson
32000
2.0
3.4
0.6
12000
25
59
23000
90
4600
1100
7400
4600
63
0.28
930
55
290
10/11/18
Hortense
1400
5
1.0
1
14000
10
100
990
3.9
2400
25
4400
17000
100
2
30
50
23
Jackson
3500
5
1.5
1
13000
4.1
100
2000
5.2
1900
47
4800
3100
61
2
90
8.1
27
10/26/18
Hortense
3200
1.4
3
2
7700
2.7
20
2800
13
1300
180
2900
3200
35
0.62
99
50
66
Jackson
3400
5
3
2
11000
3
100
2700
7.7
2000
200
4400
5300
55
4
100
50
51
*The criterion for thallium is a limit of 0.47 |Jg/Lat or above annual average flow conditions, applicable during all sampling events except at baseflow.
**Acute and chronic criteria were calculated using hardness values according to Ga. Comp. R. & Regs. r.391-3-6-.03(5)(e)(ii).
Project ID #15-0425
Proctor Creek Watershed Monitoring Addendum: Stormwater Report
Page 19 of 33
-------
Table 8: Analytical data for pesticides and PCBs. All values are shown in |ig/L. Values highlighted in grey indicate that the parameter
was not detected above that reporting limit. Values highlighted in orange or yellow are above the corresponding 7Q10 and/or annual
average criterion for that parameter. Dates highlighted in blue indicate baseflow samples, whereas dates highlighted in green indicate
those samples which captured the rising limb and/or peak of the hydrograph.
alpha-
alpha-
alpha-
delta-
gamma-
Arodor
Arodor
Total
Chlordane
Endosulfan
BHC
BHC
Dieldrin
Chlordane
Heptachlor
Lindane
p,p'-DDE
p,p'-DDT
1254
1260
Arodors
7Q.10
0.0043
0.056
0.056
0.0043
0.0038
0.95
0.001
0.014
annual average
89
0.0049
0.000054
0.000079
1.8
0.00022
0.00022
0.000064
7/31/17 Spring
Hortense
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.1
0.1
0.1
7/28/17 Jackson
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.1
0.1
0.1
Hortense
10/30/18
Jackson
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.1
0.1
0.1
8/31/17 SP6
Hortense
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.1
0.042
0.042
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.1
0.1
0.1
9/11/17 Jackson
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.1
0.1
0.1
10/8/17 Jackson
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.1
0.06
0.06
10/23/17 Spri"g
Hortense
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.1
0.1
0.1
10/28/17 Jackson
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.1
0.1
0.1
1/28/18 Jackson
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.1
0.1
0.1
Spring
0.01
0.01
0.0078
0.011
0.01
0.01
0.0054
0.018
0.01
0.01
0.1
0.1
0.1
2/7/18 Hortense
0.0047
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.1
0.1
0.1
Jackson
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.0075
0.01
0.01
0.0058
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.1
0.1
0.1
Hortense
2/26/18
Jackson
0.01
0.013
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.01
0.021
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.1
0.1
0.1
Hortense
3/11/18
Jackson
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.011
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.027
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.1
0.1
0.1
Hortense
9/26/18
Jackson
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.0075
0.0052
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.0094
0.097
0.1
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.0073
0.0034
0.01
0.01
0.0041
0.01
0.07
0.053
0.12
10/10/18 Jackson
0.012
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.0078
0.0085
0.1
0.1
0.1
Hortense
10/11/18
Jackson
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.0084
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.1
0.1
0.1
/- Hortense
10/26/18
Jackson
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.1
0.1
0.1
Most values reported were above the detection limit but below the reporting limit. Reporting limits varied slightly among dates, and are rounded for clarity.
Project ID #15-0425 Proctor Creek Watershed Monitoring Addendum: Stormwater Report Page 20 of 33
-------
Table 9: Analytical data for semi-volatile organic compounds. All values are shown in |ig/L. Values highlighted in grey indicate that
the parameter was not detected above that reporting limit. Values highlighted in orange are above the corresponding annual average
criterion for that parameter. Dates highlighted in blue indicate baseflow samples, whereas dates highlighted in green indicate those
samples which captured the rising limb and/or peak of the hydrograph.
& / xy / x?
J?
& / a-
N? /
vV> / <.V?
£
AT
<5*
/ V
* / <2
>v
/
VV*
/of /of
/<&
/of /of
/ v /
/ & / \
/
0/ A
v / <3- / <
/- / /
yy
/<£
annual average
r
990
40000
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
2.2
0.018
0.018
140
5300
0.018
4000
7/31/17
Spring
190
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
5
5
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
Hortense
2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
5
5
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
7/28/17
Jackson
190
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
5
5
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
10/30/18
Hortense
33
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Jackson
70
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
8/31/17
Spring
950
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.13
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
1.3
0.9
0.049
0.2
0.088
0.2
0.18
0.2
0.2
0.078
Hortense
430
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.17
0.069
0.2
0.098
0.2
1.1
0.93
0.11
0.2
0.19
0.2
0.21
0.2
0.2
0.15
9/11/17
Jackson
760
0.099
0.12
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.11
0.23
0.14
0.2
1.4
5
0.12
0.2
0.23
0.2
0.24
0.2
0.14
0.2
10/8/17
Jackson
740
0.23
0.2
0.2
0.057
0.17
0.21
0.41
0.2
0.15
0.75
5
0.29
0.2
0.39
0.094
0.2
0.2
0.21
0.34
10/23/17
Spring
620
0.084
0.095
0.2
0.2
0.17
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
5
5
0.084
0.2
0.19
0.2
0.2
0.27
0.084
0.8
Hortense
2000
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.19
0.23
0.57
0.35
0.26
0.94
5
0.34
0.2
0.6
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.19
1.1
10/28/17
Jackson
230
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.18
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
5
5
0.098
0.2
0.21
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.12
0.77
Spring
640
0.11
0.19
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
1.1
5
0.2
0.2
0.24
0.2
0.2
0.28
0.13
0.3
2/7/18
Hortense
440
0.2
0.11
0.2
0.072
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
5
5
0.2
0.2
0.94
0.2
0.2
0.13
0.38
0.81
Jackson
710
0.15
0.25
0.14
0.12
0.53
0.2
0.2
0.44
0.2
1.6
5
0.72
0.2
1.3
0.11
0.37
0.25
0.32
0.96
2/26/18
Hortense
370
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
5
5
0.2
0.2
0.18
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
Jackson
470
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
5
5
0.2
0.2
0.27
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.22
3/11/18
Hortense
200
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.22
0.22
1.3
0.95
0.19
5
5
0.42
0.92
0.64
0.2
0.95
0.2
0.16
0.5
Jackson
640
0.1
0.13
0.09
0.2
0.34
0.37
1.5
1
0.23
1.5
5
0.59
0.91
0.8
0.2
1
0.2
0.26
0.79
9/26/18
Hortense
1300
1
1
2
1
1
1
0.50
1
0.3
0.6
Jackson
1400
1
1
2
10
1
1
1
10/10/18
Jackson
1400
1
1
1
2
11
1
1
1
1
1
0.5
10/11/18
Hortense
440
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Jackson
530
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
11
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
10/26/18
Hortense
440
1
1
1
1
1
0.3
1
1
2
1
1
1
0.3
1
1
1
1
1
Jackson
510
0.4
0.4
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
10
1
1
1
1
1
0.3
0.2
1
Values above the detection limit but below the reporting limit are shown, where available. Reporting limits varied slightly among dates, and are rounded for clarity.
Proctor Creek Watershed Monitoring Addendum: Stormwater Report Page 21 of 33
Project ID #15-0425
-------
Figure 1: Study site location in Fulton County, GA. The Proctor Creek watershed drains to the
Chattahoochee River, which flows across the Florida panhandle to the Gulf of Mexico
- Mainstem of Prodor Creek
' Streams and tributaries
i i Watershed boundary
Lincoln
Atlanta
VMutmw
Cemetery
Lillian Cooper Park
Northwest
Kerry Circle
AD Williams
James Jackson
.West Highlands
Spring Street
Hot-tense1
Hoi low el I
iNorth Outfall
Greensfeny Outfall
| Burbank
rorr.: iG\ IGF. -
Figure 2: Map of sampling locations in the Proctor Creek watershed, with USGS gauge stations at Spring,
Hortense and Jackson shown in red. The darker blue line indicates the mainstem of Proctor Creek, with
tributaries shown in lighter blue.
Proctor Creek Watershed
Atlanta, GA
¦[Grove Park
'\ " ^ V
L ^ V. h
f
Vv;V,'. fy\ \_ f
s
~
Proctor Creek Basin
Proctor Creek
o
Sampling Locations
~
CSO Facilities
g X -V
Lindsay Street \
" 1
¦raps?v\
f \ I. J?
-i I A --s | \ \
m&sm
Project ID #15-0425
Proctor Creek Watershed Monitoring Addendum: Stonnwater Report
Page 22 of 33
-------
Figure 3: Total nitrogen and total phosphorus concentrations across stations and sampling
events. The first three dates are baseflow data from the quarterly monitoring study (average
of 8 data points from 2015-2017), the two July 2017 events at the beginning of this study,
and the October 2018 event at the end of this study.
BuS
E
n 3.0
w
m
o
¦I 2.0
BASEFLOW
IS
1.0
0.0
iA
i
'O qV qP
¦ Spring : Hortense Jackson
0.6
3
WJ
"04
S
J2 0.3
Q.
o
1
XT Q 2
BASEFLOW
|o.i " ~
| | J
ill L -
0.0
aA pA ,v*A kkS \\S \\S \n?^ vnJ* \,sS*
¦ Spring Ho
tense iJackson
Project ID #15-0425
Proctor Creek Watershed Monitoring Addendum: Stormwater Report
Page 23 of 33
-------
APPENDIX A
Methods, routine minimum reporting limits (MRL) for water and sediment matrices, and water quality
standards (WQS) for each of the parameters analyzed during this study, according to analyte group.
Highlighted analytes were not found above the MRL indicated in any stormwater samples during this
study. WQS are shown where applicable only, for annual average criteria unless otherwise indicated. 1Q10
= one-day 10-year minimum low flow. 7Q10 = 7-day 10-year minimum low flow.
NUTRIENTS & CLASSICALS
TOTAL RECOVERABLE METALS
Analyte
Method
MRL
(mg/L)
Analyte
Method
MRL
(hk/l)
WQS (jig/L)
Ammonia
EPA 350.1
0.1
Aluminum
EPA 200.7
100
Bromide
EPA 300.0
0.25
Antimony
EPA 200.8
5
640
Chloride
EPA 300.0
0.1
Arsenic
EPA 200.8
2
50
1Q10 = 340
7Q10 = 150
Fluoride
EPA 300.0
0.5
Barium
EPA 200.7
200
Hardness
SM 2340C
5
Beryllium
EPA 200.7
5
Nitrate+Nitrite
EPA 353.2
0.05
Cadmium*
EPA 200.8
1
1Q10 = 1.0
7Q10 = 0.15
Sulfate
EPA 300.0
0.1
Ca 1 ci u m
EPA 200.7
1000
Tota 1 Dissolved
Phosphorus
EPA 365.2
0.005
Chromium III*
EPA 200.7
10
1Q10 = 320
7Q10 = 42
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen
EPA 351.2
0.1
Chromium VI*
EPA 200.7
10
1Q10 = 16
7Q10 = 11
Total Organic Carbon
SM 5310B
2
Coba It
EPA 200.7
20
Total Phosphorus
EPA 365.2
0.005
Copper*
EPA 200.7
100
1Q10 = 7.0
7Q10 = 5.0
Total Suspended Solids
SM 2540D
2
Iron
EPA 200.7
300
Suspended Sediment
ASTM D 3977-97
2
Lead*
EPA 200.8
2
1Q10 = 30
7Q10 = 1.2
* WQS forthese metals are calculated using the
total hardness of the water body. Formulae are
listed in Ga. Comp. R. & Regs. r. 391-3-6-.03(5)(e)(ii).
Values shown assume a hardness of 50 mg/L CaCo3.
Magnesium
EPA 200.7
1000
Manganese
EPA 6010C
20
Mercury*
EPA 245.1
0.2
1Q10 = 1.4
7Q10 = 0.012
Molybdenum
EPA 200.7
10
Nickel*
EPA 200.7
100
1Q10 = 260
7Q10 = 29
Potassi um
EPA 200.7
400
Selenium
EPA 200.8
5
7Q10 = 5
Silver
EPA 200.7
20
Sodium
EPA 200.7
1000
Strontium
EPA 200.7
100
Thallium
EPA 200.8
2
0.47
Tin
EPA 200.7
200
Titanium
EPA 200.7
10
Vanadium
EPA 200.7
50
Yttrium
EPA 200.7
100
Zinc*
EPA 200.7
100
1Q10 = 165
7Q10 = 65
Project ID #15-0425
Proctor Creek Watershed Monitoring Addendum: Stormwater Report
Page 24 of 33
-------
PESTICIDES
Analyte
Method
MRL (jig/L)
WQS (ng/L)
4,4'-DDD (p,p'-DDD)
SW 8081B
0.01
0.00031
4,4'-DDE (p,p'-DDE)
SW 8081B
0.01
0.00022
4,4'-DDT (p,p'-DDT)
SW 8081B
0.01
0.00022
7Q10 = 0.001
Aldrin
SW 8081B
0.01
0.00005
Dieldri n
SW 8081B
0.01
0.000054
7Q10 = 0.056
Endosulfa n 1
(alpha)
SW 8081B
0.01
89
7Q10 = 0.056
Endosulfan II
(beta)
SW 8081B
0.01
89
7Q10 = 0.056
Endosulfan Sulfate
SW 8081B
0.01
89
7Q10 = 0.056
Endrin
SW 8081B
0.01
0.060
7Q10 = 0.036
Endrin aldehyde
SW 8081B
0.01
0.30
Endrin ketone
SW 8081B
0.01
Heptachlor
SW 8081B
0.01
0.000079
7Q10 = 0.0038
Heptachlor epoxide
SW 8081B
0.01
0.000039
7Q10 = 0.0038
Methoxychlor
SW 8081B
0.01
7Q10 = 0.03
Toxa phene
SW 8081B
0.2
0.00028
7Q10 = 0.0002
alpha-BHC
SW 8081B
0.01
0.0049
alpha-Chlordane
SW 8081B
0.01
0.00081
7Q10 = 0.0043
ga mma-Chlorda ne
SW 8081B
0.01
beta-BHC
SW 8081B
0.01
0.017
delta-BHC
SW 8081B
0.01
gamma-BHC
(Lindane)
SW 8081B
0.01
1.8
1Q10 = 0.95
PCB AROCLORS
Analyte
Method
MRL
(Hg/L)
WQS (jig/L)
PCB Aroclor 1016
SW 8082A
0.1
for all
PCBs:
0.000064
7Q10 =
0.014
PCB Aroclor 1221
SW 8082A
0.1
PCB Aroclor 1232
SW 8082A
0.1
PCB Aroclor 1242
SW 8082A
0.1
PCB Aroclor 1248
SW 8082A
0.1
PCB Aroclor 1254
SW 8082A
0.1
PCB Aroclor 1260
SW 8082A
0.1
PCB Aroclor 1262
SW 8082A
0.1
PCB Aroclor 1268
SW 8082A
0.1
Project ID #15-0425
Proctor Creek Watershed Monitoring Addendum: Stormwater Report
Page 25 of 33
-------
SEMI-VOLATILE ORGANICS
Analyte
MRL (jig/L)
WQS
(Hg/L)
Analyte
MRL (jig/L)
WQS
(Hg/L)
1,1-Biphenyl
5
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
0.2
1,2,4-Trichloro benzene
5
70
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
0.2
0.018
1,4-Dioxane
1
Benzyl butyl phthalate
5
1900
1-Methylna phtha lene
0.2
Bis(2-chloroethoxy)methane
5
2,3,4,6-Tetrachloro phenol
5
Bis(2-chloroethyl) ether
5
0.53
2,4,5-Trichlorophenol
5
Bis(2-chloroisopropyl) ether
5
65000
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
4
2.4
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
5
2.2
2,4-Dichlorophenol
5
290
Caprolactam
5
2,4-Dimethylphenol
5
850
Ca rbazole
5
2,4-Dinitrophenol
25
5300
Chrysene
0.2
0.018
2,4-Dinitrotoluene
5
3.4
o-Cresol
5
2,6-Dinitrotoluene
5
Di-n-butylphthalate
5
4500
2-Chlorona phtha lene
5
1600
Di-n-octylphthalate
5
2-Chlorophenol
5
150
Di benz(a,h)a nth ra cene
0.2
0.018
2-Methyl-4,6-dinitrophenol
10
280
Dibenzofuran
4
2-Methylna phtha lene
0.2
Diesel Range Organics
200
2-Nitroaniline
5
Diethyl phthalate
5
44000
2-Nitrophenol
5
Dimethyl phthalate
5
1100000
3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine
20
0.028
Fluoranthene
0.2
140
3-Nitroaniline
10
Fluorene
0.2
5300
4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether
5
Hexachlorobenzene (HCB)
5
0.00029
4-Chloro-3-methyl phenol
5
Hexachlorobutadiene
5
18
4-Chloroaniline
10
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
(HCCP)
5
1100
4-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether
5
Hexachloroethane
5
3.3
4-Nitroaniline
10
Indeno (1,2,3-cd) pyrene
0.2
0.018
4-Nitrophenol
25
Isophorone
5
960
Acenaphthene
0.2
990
Na phtha lene
0.2
Acena phthylene
0.2
Nitrobenzene
3
690
Acetophenone
5
Pentachlorophenol
5
3.0
7Q10=15
Anthra cene
0.2
40000
Phena nthrene
0.2
Atrazine
5
Phenol
5
857000
7Q10=30
0
Benzaldehyde
5
Pyre n e
0.2
4000
Benzo(a)anthra cene
0.2
0.018
n-Nitroso di-n-Propylamine
5
0.51
Benzo(a)pyrene
0.2
0.018
n-Nitrosodi phenyl a mi ne
5
6.0
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
0.2
0.018
All semi-volatile compounds were analyzed by Method SW 8270D, except Diesel Range Organics,
a na lyzed by Method SW 8015D.
Project ID #15-0425 Proctor Creek Watershed Monitoring Addendum: Stormwater Report Page 26 of 33
-------
APPENDIX B
Discharge graphs for each stormwater sampling event, including the day prior to and the day following
each sampling date. Arrows indicate the approximate sample start time at each station. Note that discharge
data are from the Jackson station only, to provide a visual representation of the storm event. Actual
discharge data for Hortense and Spring are shown in Tables 3 & 4.
August 31, 2017
^USGS
USGS 02336526 PROCTOR CREEK AT JACKSON PARKWAY, AT ATLANTA, GA
Hortense 1
A 1
r%
¦
i\
I \
Spring
j^
j
/
V_J
J\
f \
7 \
fy-
\
,t J
^
1 i r
00:00 12:00 00:00 12:00 00:00 12:00 00:00
Rug 30 Rug 30 Rug 31 Rug 31 Sep 01 Sep 01 Sep 02
2017 2017 2017 2017 2017 2017 2017
Median daily statistic <17 years) Period of approved data
Discharge
September 11, 2017
^USGS
USGS 02336526 PROCTOR CREEK AT JACKSON PARKWAY, AT ATLANTA, GA
2000.0
L
a
CL
§
CJ
O
L
1000.0
100.0
10.0
1.0
oo:oo
Sep 10
2017
Jackson
c
12:00
Sep 10
2017
oo:oo
Sep 11
2017
12:00
Sep 11
2017
00:00
Sep 12
2017
12:00
Sep 12
2017
00:00
Sep 13
2017
Median daily statistic <17 years)
Discharge
Period of approved data
Project ID #15-0425 Proctor Creek Watershed Monitoring Addendum: Stormwater Report
Page 27 of 33
-------
October 8, 2017
1USGS
USGS 02336526 PROCTOR CREEK AT JACKSON PARKWAY, AT ATLANTA, GA
A
\ A
Jackson ~
V \
\J \
\
\
\
\
X
X
>¦
f
/
00:00 12:00 00:00 12:00 00:00 12:00 00:00
Oct 07 Oct 07 Oct 08 Oct 08 Oct 09 Oct 09 Oct 10
2017 2017 2017 2017 2017 2017 2017
Median daily statistic <17 years) "¦ Period of approved data
Discharge
October 23, 2017
31 USGS
USGS 02336526 PROCTOR CREEK AT JACKSON PARKWAY, AT ATLANTA, GA
900.0
100.0
% 10.0
L
13
Hortense
Spring
2.0
00:00
Oct 22
2017
12:00
Oct 22
2017
00:00
Oct 23
2017
12:00
Oct 23
2017
00:00
Oct 2 A
2017
12:00
Oct 24
2017
oq;o0
Oct 25
2017
Median daily statistic <17 years)
Discharge
Period of approved data
Project ID #15-0425 Proctor Creek Watershed Monitoring Addendum: Stormwater Report
Page 28 of 33
-------
October 28, 2017
^USGS
USGS 02336526 PROCTOR CREEK AT JACKSON PARKWAY, AT ATLANTA, GA
200.0
u
O 100.0
o
c_
u
Q.
¦P
1
U
10.0
0)
fit
L
tQ
«C
o
CO
Jackson
a
1.0
00:00
Oct 27
2017
12:00
Oct 27
2017
oo:ee
Oct 28
2017
12:00
Oct 28
2017
00:00
Oct 29
2017
12:00
Oct 29
2017
00:00
Oct 30
2017
Hedian daily statistic (17 years)
Discharge
Period of approved data
January 28, 2018
^USGS
USGS 02336526 PROCTOR CREEK AT JACKSON PARKWAY, AT ATLANTA, GA
100.8
Jackson
H
A
3.0 *
oo:oo
Jan 27
2018 2018 2018 2018 2018 2018 2018
Hedian daily statistic <17 years) Period of approved data
Discharge
Project ID #15-0425
Proctor Creek Watershed Monitoring Addendum: Stonnwater Report
Page 29 of 33
-------
February 7, 2018
USGS
USGS 02336526 PROCTOR CREEK AT JACKSON PARKWAY, AT ATLANTA, GA
1000.0
"O
C
C
8
0)
«
v
4)
O
H
-Q
9
a
100.0
10*0
Hortense
Jackson
Spring
6.0
oo:oo
Feb 06
2018
12:00
Feb 06
2018
oo:oo
Feb 07
2018
12:00
Feb 87
2018
eo:eo
Feb 08
2018
12:00
Feb 08
2018
oo:oo
Feb 09
2018
Median daily statistic <17 years)
Discharge
Period of approved data
Measured discharge
February 26, 2018
USGS
USGS 02336526 PROCTOR CREEK AT JACKSON PARKWAY, AT ATLANTA, GA
300.0
1 200.0
e
o
0)
M
u 100.0
t)
a
*>
S
a
o
-O
3
o
u
H
L.
a
x
o
V)
10.0
4.0
JJackson
\
4
BF
t
5
Fv
I
£
/ Hortense
4
[ V
/ T
_ 1
00:00
Feb 25
2018
12:00
Feb 25
2018
00:00
Feb 26
2018
12:00
Feb 26
2018
00:00
Feb 27
2018
12:00
Feb 27
2018
00:00
Feb 28
2018
Median daily statistic <17 years)
Oischarge
Period of approved data
Project ID #15-0425
Proctor Creek Watershed Monitoring Addendum: Stonnwater Report
Page 30 of 33
-------
March 11, 2018
^USGS
USGS 02336526 PROCTOR CREEK AT JACKSON PARKWAY, AT ATLANTA, GA
400.0
¦a 30O.O
200.0
100.0
10.0
7.0
00:00
Mar 10
2018
ztr
<
iortense
i
1
I
jacKson
\ \
\ \
\
\
/
f
\
\
/ \
I
/
/
/
^ /
12:00
Mar 10
2018
00:00
Mar 11
2018
12:00
Mar 11
2018
eo: 00
Mar 12
2018
12:00
Mar 12
2018
00:00
Mar 13
2018
Median daily statistic (17 years) Period of approved data
Discharge
September 26, 2018
^USGS
USGS 02336526 PROCTOR CREEK AT JACKSON PARKWAY, AT ATLANTA, GA
300.
500.
400.
¦D
c
U 200.£
V
to
100.E
Q.
B
U
U
H
JD
O
O
Q
QUO
L
n
.c
a
B
10.0
2.0
Jackson
Hortense
00:00
Sep 25
2018
12:00
Sep 25
2018
00:00
Sep 2G
2018
12:00
Sep 26
2018
00:00
Sep 27
2018
12:00
Sep 27
2018
00:00
Sep 28
2018
Median daily statistic <17 years)
Discharge
Period of approved data
Project ID #15-0425 Proctor Creek Watershed Monitoring Addendum: Stormwater Report
Page 31 of 33
-------
October 10-11, 2018
USGS
USGS 02336526 PROCTOR CREEK AT JACKSON PARKWAY, AT ATLANTA, GA
4000.0
3000.0
2000.0
1000.0
L
03
Q.
-0
9
u
t-
(0
j£
o
100.0
10.0
1.0
Jackson
Hortense
Jackson
oo:eo 12:00
Oct 09 Oct 09
2018 2018
00:00
Oct 10
2018
12:00
Oct 10
2018
O0:ee
Oct 11
2018
12:00
Oct 11
2018
00:00
Oct 12
2018
12:00 oo:oo
Oct 12 Oct 13
2018 2818
Median daily statistic <17 years)
Discharge
Period of approved data
M Measured discharge
October 26, 2018
^USGS
USGS 02336526 PROCTOR CREEK AT JACKSON PARKWAY, AT ATLANTA, GA
-a
c
o
u
03
w
tm
03
Q.
*>
03
0)
o
¦H
-O
9
o
03
03
L
to
-C
Q
I
H
o
200.0
100.0
10.0
1*0
00:00
Oct 25
2018
Hortense
Jackson I
v. /
1
i
±
X
12:00
Oct 25
2018
00:00
Oct 26
2018
12:00
Oct 26
2018
oo:oo
Oct 27
2018
12:00
Oct 27
2018
oo:oo
Oct 28
2018
Median daily statistic <17 years)
Discharge
Period of approved data
Project ID #15-0425
Proctor Creek Watershed Monitoring Addendum: Stonnwater Report
Page 32 of 33
-------
END OF DOCUMENT
Project ID #15-0425 Proctor Creek Watershed Monitoring Addendum: Stormwater Report Page 33 of 33
------- |