LINE CREEK ASSOCIATION OF FAYETTE COUNTY

 FLINT RIVER

 BIOLOGICAL STATUS - - 2002

 March 15, 2002

INTRODUCTION
To better understand the biology of the main stem of the Flint River as it currently exists, biological samples were taken during a 10-day period - - February 18 through February 27, 2002.  The primary sampling was by use of a standard D-frame macroinvertebrate sampling net, obtaining samples from each habitat type at access points between I-285 near Hartsfield Airport and the southernmost portion of Fayette County.  This segment of the flint River is approximately 22 miles in length.  General notes of conditions were taken at each sample point and specimens obtained were preserved,  identified and enumerated for analysis.  Photographs were taken at several of the sampling locations (Photo appendix).

Of the twelve available public access sites, nine were used; those sample sites are identified in Table 1 and displayed on the map of the Flint River Basin.

Table 1.    SAMPLE LOCATIONS
Flint River Sample             Approximate mileage
Locations                         downstream from I-285
1.    Mill Road (blocked)                0.25
2.    Atlanta Parkway South          0.95
3.    GA Highway 85                        1.25
4.    Upper Riverdale Road            2.85
5.    GA Highway 138                      5.75
6.    Flint River Road                      6.70
7.    GA Highway 54                        8.45
8.    McDonough Road                 10.05
9.    Below GA Highway 92         21.60

The section of the Flint River discussed in this report constitutes the majority of the river’s main stem within the area of consideration of the Flint River Advisory Council.

The first 1 to 1 _ miles of the Flint River runs over solid rock or large boulders, interspersed with occasional pools where small amounts of sediment settles temporarily.  Most macroinvertebrate habitat is in the vicinity of large rock riffles.  For the next 7 or so miles, the Flint River has a variety of habitats with medium to large sand/gravel substrate but a somewhat restricted flood plain.  The restriction is partially a natural condition, but made worse by development along the edge of the floodplain.  More organism habitat is available from larger amounts of in-stream wooded debris, even though it is a rather narrow stream corridor.  There are a few wider swamp-like areas, but this type of habitat does not become prevalent until the river passes Georgia Highway 54.   The remainder of the Flint River below GA Hwy. 54 has a finer substrate, and in the segments where the river spreads into braided channels, there are more habitat opportunities for all varieties of benthic organisms as well as other fish and wildlife.  The habitat availability exception occurs in those segments where the Flint River is restricted by natural or man-made features to a single channel.  These are usually deep and slow-moving which significantly restricts habitat availability.  The banks are often steep and combined with the deeper water, little aquatic vegetation is able to become established.

SAMPLING RESULTS
The Technical Information is attached and includes background information on the primary method of evaluation, the Biotic Index.  Table 2 lists the nine sample sites, the number of organisms found, the site Biotic Index and the stream segment rating.  One additional number generated from the sampling data is one that the Environmental Protection Agency uses in their Rapid Bioassessment Protocols; and that is the EPT Index.  For this indicator of  stream quality being rated as in balance or healthy, the EPT Index percentage should be in the range of 25 to 40.

The Flint River, in the first 1.5(+/-) miles is basically lifeless, with the exception of algae.  Sampling at Site #1 and Site #2 found zero organisms from an extensive search.  Site #3 had only 15 organisms and almost all were the variety expected from a very degraded stream.  Follow the rankings provided in Table 2 and it isn’t until Sample Site #8 before the quality improved beyond poor.  Table 2 listing using the EPT Index did not come close to the balance percentage that should be found in a healthy stream.

By following the numerical rating from Sample Site # 1 through Site #9, there is a general improvement in the quality of water.  Probably the most logical explanation of this improvement is the fact that over this 22-mile segment of the Flint River, there are at least 22 tributaries to the main channel.  A review of the Flint River Basin map will show that a number of these streams currently carry a degraded (red) ranking by Georgia Environmental Protection Division (EPD), but the water quality still increases.  The best example is between Site #7 and Site #8 where there is a dramatic improvement.  Between these sample stations, Morning Creek joins the Flint River.  Morning Creek has a very high level of water quality, especially when compared to the Flint River and this influx of very good water improves the Flint River quality.  Note also the increase in the number of different types of organisms between these sample sites, also demonstrating the improvement.

Because of the low quality found in this most recent sampling, Table 3 and Table 4 were developed using data from GA EPD sampling stations near Inman, Georgia and from GA Highway 92.  The Inman sampling station is several miles upstream from the Highway 92 sampling station.  This data was readily available and these and perhaps other State sampling stations could be used to produce additional evaluation tables.  The results indicate a somewhat better rating of water quality, but still not at a quality level where we could feel a strong level of assurance.

CONCLUSION
This closer examination of the Flint River demonstrates that, for whatever reason, the river is in very poor shape in the upper-most portion and this is not clearly shown by GA EPD or any other data source available to us.  This understatement of the seriousness of the problem should lead us to more urgent actions, particularly in the upper 8 miles of the Flint River.  There should also be further detailed sampling of Mud Creek and Camp Creek which are recognized by the EPD as not supporting the designation of the stream. (See map showing red lines indicating “not supporting”)  We have large numbers of citizens dependant on the quality of water in these streams, especially for drinking water.  Large portions of these streams flow through virtual no-mans-land (see photos of Sites 1, 2, and 3) where significant damage is taking place and there is no one to watch over the problems.

The Atlanta Regional Commission report: Source Water Assessment Project: An Assessment of Potential for Pollution of Surface Drinking Water Supply Sources (Fayette County), provides a sense of the additional problems we can be facing.  One or more of these sources is already contributing to the “Dead” portion of the Flint River.  There is no other explanation for the lack of life in the uppermost section and we need to be taking action now.

Table 5 in the Technical Data section is a partial list of the types of pollutants that have been recorded as flowing into the Flint River above GA Hwy 85.  Some or all of these toxins are likely the cause of the dead zone in the upper 1 _ miles of the river.  The data source did not indicate the volumes of the spills nor did it provide the dates these spills took place.  However, it is safe to say that this partial list is a guarantee that we will not have any improvement in the overall quality of water in the Flint River until we have a far higher level of protection through more intense monitoring and enforcement.  The existing level will deteriorate even further unless a system-wide program is implemented on all of the largest tributaries.

RECOMMENDATIONS
Strengthen the sections of all three of the Plans which are being developed.  All are dependant on a presumed level of water purity, which is questionable at this point, and the quality will not improve until a better basis is provided for the beginning steps.

1.  Implement a combined chemical and biological evaluation of the larger streams in the watershed.

2.  Implement a program to clean up the significant accumulations of garbage in the flood plains.

3.  Create a water quality monitoring system/program on the main stem of the Flint River.

4.  Implement a area-wide toxin containment system for Hartsfield Airport to control all of the numerous point sources.
Tolerance levels for each family or Order of aquatic life is based on a vast amount of research and widely accepted as a means for measuring stream water quality through sampling of the biotic community.  Most recently, the work of R.W. Bode, et. al. in 1991 and 1996, are the accepted tolerance levels and are used in this report.  Tolerance is an assigned value for each organism with a range of 0 for those organisms very intolerant of organic wastes to 10 for organisms very tolerant of organic waste.

Of the organisms found in this sample program, and based on the above research, the following tolerance levels were used:

Organism    Tolerance        Organism    Tolerance
Mayflies                 3                 Caddisflies          3
Water Mites          4                  Amphipods        4
Crayfish                  6                  Clams                  7
Dragonflies            5                  Damselflies        8
Blood Worms        8                  Other Midge      6
Aquatic Worms     8                  Leeches             10

The Family Biotic Index is calculated by finding the accumulated sum of the tolerance values for each organism multiplied by the number within the family counted; and then divided by the total number of organisms collected.  (e.g. 4 crayfish collected X 6 = 24; plus 7 blood worms collected X 8 = 56 for a total of 80; divided by 11 equals a biotic index value of  7.27)

FAMILY-LEVEL BIOTIC INDEX

Family Biotic Index   Water Quality  Degree of Organic Pollution
0.00 - 3.75                    Excellent       Organic pollution unlikely
3.76 - 4.25                     Very Good    Possible slight organic pollution
4.26 - 5.00                     Good             Some organic pollution probable
5.01 - 5.75                      Fair                Fairly substantial pollution likely
5.76 - 6.50                      Fairly Poor   Substantial pollution likely
6.51 - 7.25                       Poor               Very substantial pollution likely
7.26 - 10.00                    Very Poor      Severe organic pollution likely

(Index based on research by W.L. Hilsenhoff and published in the Journal of the Benthological Society, 1988)

REFERENCES
Atlanta Regional Commission, December 2001. Surface Water Assessment Project: An Assessment of Potential for Pollution of Surface Drinking Water Supply Sources: prepared for Fayette County Water System and City of Fayetteville Water Department.  Atlanta, Georgia

Atlanta Regional Commission, December 2001. Surface Water Assessment Project: An Assessment of Potential for Pollution of Surface Drinking Water Supply Sources: Flint River Watershed Database. Atlanta, Georgia

Barbour, M.T., J. Gerritsen, B.D. Snyder, and J.B. Stribling. 1999. Rapid Bioassessment Protocols for Use in Streams and Wadeable Rivers: Periphyton, Benthic Macroinvertebrates and Fish, Second Edition. EPA 841-B-99-002, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Office of Water; Washington, D.C.

Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Environmental Protection Division, 1993. Surface Water Quality Report.

Hilsenhoff, W.L. 1988. Rapid Field Assessment of Organic Pollution with a Family-level Biotic Index. J. N. American Benthological Society. 7(1):65-68.

Mandaville, S.M. May 2001.  Taxa Tolerance Values- Benthic Macroinvertebrates in Freshwaters. Soil & Water Conservation Society of Metro Halifax

Table 2           SAMPLE RESULTS - BASIC DATA (February 2002)
Site#    Results                    Biotic Index    Rating    EPT Index
1.    No living organisms found      10.0             Very Poor       0.0%
2.    No living organisms found      10.0             Very Poor       0.0%
3.    15 organisms; 3 groups             6.80            Poor             6.6%
4.    75 organisms; 4 groups             7.91             Very Poor       9.0%
5.    164 organisms; 12 groups         7.40             Very Poor       1.4%
6.    82 organisms; 11 groups           6.53              Poor           0.6%
7.    93 organisms; 8 groups             6.89             Poor           2.1%
8.    135 organisms; 18 groups             6.13          Fairly Poor     12.6%
9.    74 organisms; 11 groups             6.04            Fairly Poor       6.8%

(EPT  Index  is a percentage comparison of the high water quality groups:    mayflies, stoneflies and caddisflies)

Table 3    GA EPD SAMPLE DATA AT ACKERT ROAD NEAR INMAN  Station 11015001   (1988 through 1993)

Year  Number of Organisms  Biotic Index Value  Rating  EPT Index
1988               218                                5.84          Fairly Poor  22.0%
1989                229                               4.77           Good            80.8%
1990                174                                 3.61          Very Good   62.6%
1991                  321                                4.76          Good            44.5%
1992                 351                                 4.69          Good           57.3%
1993                 309                                4.76          Good          54.0%
TOTAL/AVE.  1602                              4.79         Good          53.2%

Table 4  GA EPD SAMPLE DATA AT THE GEORGIA HIGHWAY 92 BRIDGE   Station 11018001   (1981 through 1987)

Year Number of Organisms Biotic Index Value Rating  EPT Index
1981         216                           4.51                  Good               21.8%
1982        1026                          5.89                 Fairly Poor    21.0%
1983         230                          5.37                   Fair                 19.1%
1984         329                          5.09                   Fair                 35.0%
1985         428                          5.20                   Fair                 35.0%
1986         238                          5.90                   Fairly Poor     5.0%
1986         1413 (Quantitative)4.96                 Good                7.9%
1987          251                          6.47                    Fairly Poor    27.9%
TOTAL/AVE. 4131                  5.37                    Fair                 18.5%