CHARLESTON HARBOR
WATER QUALITY STUDY
FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ADMINISTRATION
-------
A REPORT ON THE WATER QUALITY OF
CHARLESTON HARBOR AND THE EFFECTS THEREON
OF THE PROPOSED COOPER RIVER REDIVERSION
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Federal Water Pollution Control Administration
Southeast Water Laboratory
Charleston Harbor-Cooper River Project
Charleston, South Carolina
June 1966
-------
-------
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page No.
INTRODUCTION . 1
Authority . 3
Purpose and Scope of Study 4
Acknowledgements 4
SUJI4ItARY..... ....... . 5
CONCLUSIONS. . •1 ii
Present Conditions . . . 11
FutureConditions 12
DESCRIPTION OF STUDY AREA... 15
DESCRIPTION OF STIJDY . . . . 19
Specific Objectives. . . . . . . . . . . 19
Study Methods 19
RESUTJTS OF STUDY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Present Water Quality 37
Relationship of Present Water Quality to
Environmental Changes............................. 52
PREDICTION OF FUTURE WATER QUALITY.. ......... 79
Coliform Concentrations 80
Sludge Beds . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
Toxic Materials... 81
Nutrient Buildup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
Dissolved Oxygen. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
BIBLIOG P . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
APPENDICES...... . . .... . A—i
A Summary of Routine Survey Data.................... A—i
B Summary of Intensive Survey Data.................. B—i
C Summary of Chloride—Discharge Analysis Data C—l
-------
iii
LIST OF TABLES
Table No. Title Page No .
1 Hydro Plant Diseharges—Pinopolis Dam 18
2 Water Quality Parameters Measured............... 21—22
3 Laboratory Analytical Procedures. ........ .. 23—25
4 Intensive Sampling Program 27
5 Special Studies..... .... . 29—31
6 Source of Organic Material in Benthic Deposits.. 44
7 Laboratory Investigation of Oxygen Utilization
byBenthicDeposits........ 45
8 Benthic Biota 49
9 Phytoplankton Concentrations. .. SO
10 Cumulative Knots of Wind by Direction. 53
11 Major Waste Discharges 55—56
12 CumulativeSolarRadiation............... 58
13 Solar Radiation and D.O. Variance............... 60
14 Analysis of Model Dye Studies 70
15 overall Response of D.O. Percent Saturation
to River Discharge. . a 73
16 Analysis of D.O. Response to River Discharge
and Correction for Tide Range 74
Appendices
A—i Results from Routine Tionitoring ... A—2—5
1 3—1 Mean Values of Percent Saturation of
I)issolved Oxygen . . . . . . . . . . 5—2
1 3—2 Mean Values of Water Temperature 1 3—3
6—3 Mean Values of Chlorides 1 3 —4
13—4 Mean Values of Total Coliforms B—S
8—5 ?4eanVa luesofFecalCOlifOrfl s 13—6
11—6 Surface to Bottom Chloride Ratios.... B—i
B—i Mean Values of 5—Day ROD.... B—8
1 3—8 Mean Values of Ammonia . 1 3—9
Mean Values of Nitrates B—lO
6—10 Mean Values of Organic Nitrogen B—li
B—li Mean Values of Total Phosphates. 1 3—12
6—12 .Sunmary of pH Data . .. 3—13
5—13 Summary of Turbidity, Total Solids and
Volatile Solids. 3—14
C—i Overall Response of Chioride Concentration
to River DischarQe . C—2
C—2 Analysis of Chloride Response to Tide Ranges.... C—3
C—3 Slack Tide Salinity Measurements C—4
C—4 Salinity l ?rofileStudy..... . ....... C—S
C—S Analysis of Chloride Data for Upper and
Lower Jiarbor Areas .... C—6
-------
iv
LIST OF FIGURES
Following
Figure No. Title Page No .
1 Charleston Harbor and Tributary Strecims........ 1
2 Charleston Harbor Sampling Locations Rear of
Report
3 Mean Values of Percent Saturation of
T)issolvedOxygen,StudyD .. 38
4 Mean Values of Water Temperatures, Study D..... 38
5 Mean Values of Chlorides, Study D 38
6 Mean Values of Total Coliforms, Study D 38
7 Mean Values of Fecal Coliforms, Study D........ 38
8 Sediment Sampling Stations, Charleston Harbor.. 44
9 SedIment Sampling Stations, Upper Cooper River. 44
10 Biological Saripling Stations, Charleston
Harbrr 48
11 Charleston Harbor, Mean Dissolved Oxygen
Percent Saturation 60
12 Charleston Harbor, Mean Chloride Values .. 61
13 Response of Chloride Concentration to
River Discharge, Lower Harbor . . 67
14 Response of Chloride Concentration to
River Discharge, Upper Harbor 67
15 Response of Dissolved Oxygen Percent
Saturation to River Discharge 77
Appendix
C—l Typical Response Spectra, Chlorides to
River Discharge C—6
-------
1
INTRODUCTI ON
Charleston Harbor is one of the finest natural harbors
on the Atlantic Coast. It is one of the most important economic
assets of the State of South Carolina serving both commercial
and military navigation. Since the completion of the Santee—
Cooper hydroelectric complex in 1942, maintenance of the ship
channels has become an extremely costly burden for the United
States Government as a result of increased rates of sediment
deposition. The annual expenditure of funds for dredging is
now approximately 2.5 million dollars and is expected to increase
unless the sedimentation problem is controlled. Historical records
show that the amount of material removed annually from the ship
channels and berthing facilities has increased from 120,000 cubic
yards prior to 1942 to over 7,000,000 cubic yards in 1961. Figure
1 shows a map of the harbor area and tributary drainage basins.
The cause of this sedimentation problem has been attributed
to the Santee—Cooper project and the resulting change in the
physical nature of the tributary watersheds. Prior to the completion
of t he Santee—Cooper project, the harbor had three tributary
streams, the Ashley, the Cooper and the Wando. All were coastal
streams with a combined average flow estimated at less than 200
cfs. Completion of the Santee—Cooper project resulted in the
diversion of the Santee River from the piedmont into the Cooper
River Basin. Both the average flow and sediment load delivered
to the harbor were increased. The average annual regulated
-------
DEPT. OF THE INTERIOR
N
miles
-
0 10 20 30
ATLANTIC
OCEAN
0
CHARLESTON HARBOR
&
TRIBUTARY STREAMS
FIGURE 1
-------
2
flow in Cooper increased from about 6000 cfs when Santee—Cooper
started operation in 1942 to over 18,000 cfs in 1965. The increase
in flow changed the nature of the estuary from a vertically—
mixed type to a salt—wedge stratified type. This change created
an ideal environment for deposition and entrapment of sediments
in the harbor. The average flow rate of the Ashley and Wando
Rivers remained unchanged and Is considered to be negligible.
The solution to the sedimentation problem appears to be
elimination of the primary source of sediment and reduction of
Inf low into the harbor to a level low enough to dispel thc salinity
stratification. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has proposed
a rediversion of 80 per cent of the flow of the Cooper River
back into the old Santee River channel as a means of achieving
this goal. One of the more important ramifications of this proposed
project is the effect of the rediversion on the water quality
in Charleston Harbor.
At the present time the majority of political entities and
industries within the Charleston metropolitan area discharge
substantially untreated wastes into the harbor. The large quantities
of fresh water inflow coupled with the tidal prism volume of
approximately 350,000 acre—feet have enabled the harbor to assimilate
these wastes with only moderate indications of pollution. Fish kills
have occurred in the Ashley River and were primarily caused by
toxic industrial wastes. High coliform concentrations from the
-------
3
domestic wastes have been observed and a reduction of dissolved
oxygen to levels near 50 percent saturation (less than 3 mg/i)
is common in the late summer. The eFfect of the proposed reduction
of fresh water inflow on the quality of water in the harbor is
of primary concern to the planning agencies.
AUTHORITY
The Charleston Harbor study was initiated at the request of
the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers by a letter dated May 15, 1963.
The letter from the Chief of Engineers to the Secretary of Health,
Education, and Welfare stated:
The purpose of the coordinated study of pollution
and waste assimilative capacity of the harbor waters
from the Corps of Engineers’ view is to determine the
net effect thereon of changes in fresh water inflow
from the unstrearn drainage area. However, since data
are not available on the current waste loadings and
assimilation, the scope of the study must include
evaluation of conditions without changes which may result
from future Corps of Engineers’ improvements. Please
regard this letter as a request for cooperation and
coordination of the Public Health Service in the
prosecution of the Charleston Harbor investigation.
The study tzas performed by personnel of the Division of Water
Supply and Pollution Control, Public Health Service, U. S. Department
of Health, Education, and Welfare.i1’ Authority for the study is
outlined in the Federal Water Pollution Control Act as amended
(33 U. S. C. 466 c [ b]).
IAs of May 10, 1966, this agency became the Federal Water Pollution
Control Administration, U. S. Department of the Interior.
-------
4
PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY
The purpose of the study was to investigate the effects of the
proposed Cooper River rediversion on the water quality in Charleston
Harbor.
The scope of the study was to determine the existing water
quality as measured by various bacteriological, biological, chemical
and physical parameters; an investigation of the effects of interactions
of these parameters on environmental changes; and a prediction of the
response of the water quality to the proposed reduction of fresh water
inflow. The area of study included the lower reaches of the Ashley,
Cooper, and Wando Rivers, the harbor area between these tributaries, and
the harbor entrance. Figure 2, the foldout at the rear of the report,
shows the study area and the primary water sampling stations.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
A number of government and private organizations and individuals
provided useful assistance during the study. Acknowledgment is gratefully
extended to the following for their help: Harbor Pollution Committee of
the Greater Charleston Chamber of Commerce, U. S. Army Corps of Engineers,
City of Charleston, Charleston Development Board, U. S. Navy, U. S. Coast
Guard, West Virginia Pulp and Paper Company, South Carolina State
Pollution Control Authority, South Carolina Commercial Fisheries, Bears
Bluff Laboratories, U. S. Army Transportation Depot, Medical College of
South Carolina, Charleston Evening Post and News Courier, and other
industries and individuals.
-------
5
SUMMARY
In 1942 the Santee River above Charleston, South Carolina, was
diverted into the Cooper River, the primary source of fresh water for
Charleston Harbor. This diversion increased the average fresh water
flow into the harbor almost one hundredfold, and the result was that
a highly stratified, salt—wedge estuary developed.
Since 1942 the amount of municipal and industrial waste discharged
into the harbor or its tributaries has increased substantially as a
result of economic growth in the Charleston area. These increased
wastes discharges have caused an increasing degradation of water
quality.
When the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers proposed in 1963 that most
of the flow of the Cooper River be rediverted back into the old Santee
River channel, there was increased concern about future water quality
within the harbor and its tributaries. It was feared that a radical
change in estuary type might develop as a result of fresh water inflow
reduction, and that this change might aggravate the already polluted
conditions.
In order to define the existing water quality conditions more
thoroughly and to determine the effects of reduced river inflow,
together with any consequent change in estuary type, on the waste
assimilative mechanisms in the harbor, the Public Health Service
initiated its Charleston Harbor Study. A statistical study approach
was selected, using techniques of spectral analysis to interrelate
existing water quality parameters with environmental influences and to
-------
6
project those interrelationships to future conditions. With this
approach it was not necessary to consider individual waste loads or
extensive cause—and—effect relationships as in systems analysis. Only
the average measured effects of these causative factors on existing
water quality in the harbor were needed to arrive at conclusions
pertaining to the overall effects of reduced river discharge and
projected changes in municipal waste treatment on the future water
quality. Because of the absence of significant seasonal changes in
municipal and industrial waste discharged to the Charleston area,
it was assumed that the harbor received a constant waste discharge
during the period of study. This assumption made it possible to
evaluate the relative effects of environmental changes without an
accurate knowledge of the total entering waste load.
Initial investigations showed that there was a paucity of data on
water quality patterns in the harbor. Consequently, it was necessary
to gather sufficient information to establish a present water quality
base and to develop a clear understanding of the predominant forces
affecting the complex interactions in the harbor.
A water quality base was developed from an intensive environmental
sampling program. The results of this program showed the harbor to
be moderately polluted with dissolved oxygen depletions in the range
of 50 percent of saturation during the late summer and average
concentrations of total coliform organisms in excess of 1000 organisms
per 100 ml, i.e., frequently reaching 30,000 organisms per ml. However,
the total nitrogen and phosphorus concentrations and 5—day BUD data in
-------
7
the order of 1 mg/i were not consistent with the low dissolved oxygen
and high coliform measurements. This dichotomy led to a series of
special studies to determine the fate of wastes discharged to the
harbor system.
Because study data indicated that there was a lack of organic
material in aqueous phase in relation to the amount of untreated
wastes discharged, the initial series of special studies was devoted
to an examination of the bottom sediments. Laboratory analyses showed
that the sediments contained large amounts of organic carbon and
organic nitrogen, suggesting that organic materials were precipitated
with the natural colloidal silt. A series of laboratory studies of
the oxygen uptake by the sediments further indicated the organic
nature of these sediments.
The dissolved oxygen data from the intensive surveys also
demonstrated very clearly the oxygen demand of the sludge. The
estuary was highly stratified during most of the intensive surveys
as shown by surface to bottom chloride ratios which averaged 0.57.
The D.0. percent saturation data showed mean dissolved oxygen in
the bottom layers that decreased from 77 percent in the outermost
stations in the harbor to 52 percent near the waste outfalls in the
upper harbor and river tributaries. In the surface layers an increasing
dissolved oxygen percent saturation profile was shown that progressed
from 64 percent near the innermost stations to 82 percent seaward.
Measurements of other water quality parameters demonstrated that
the stratified system could assimilate the existing waste discharges
-------
S
with only moderate quality degradation. Although the waters were not
of suitable quality for water contact sports as indicated by the
coliform concentrations, noxious pollution conditions did not exist.
It was determined that the projected low flows of 3000 cfs of
fresh water in the Cooper River would change the hydraulic character
of the harbor from a stratified estuary to a vertically mixed estuary.
Additional evidence of the hydraulic effects of the proposed flow
reduction was obtained from a series of dye studies in the hydraulic
model of Charleston Harbor. The dye studies indicated that wastes
discharged into the lower reaches of the Cooper and Ashley Rivers
(upper harbor) would tend to remain there for a longer period of
time. Conversely, the removal of wastes from the lower harbor would
be accelerated by the effects of tidal action on the projected
unstratified conditions.
Thus the proposed rediversion of the flow from the Santee—Cooper
Reservoirs into the old Santee channel would be beneficial to the
water quality in lower portions of Charleston Harbor but detrimental
to water quality in the upper portions. After rediversion and the
resultant change of the harbor to a vertically mixed estuary, the
major source of oxygen for waste stabilization throughout the estuary
would no longer be the more dense oceanic inflow but would be surface
reaeration; and the amount of oxygen available for stabilization of
existing bottom deposits would be reduced. In the lower harbor, this
decrease in oxygen availability would be offset by an accelerated
hydraulic removal of wastes and a decreased inflow of wastes from the
-------
9
upper harbor. However, in the vicinity of the paper plant on the
Cooper River and in the industrial complex on the Ashley River, the
waste materials would be more concentrated and would remain in these
reaches for longer periods of tine. The end result would be a much
greater degradation of water quality in bath qpper harbor areas. In
the Cooper River, from about a mile above to about three miles below
the West Virginia Pulp and Paper Company waste outfall, the D.O.
depletion would become severe. The sludge demands combined with the
suspended load would probably overtax the oxygen resources in this
reach to a point where periods of complete speticity can he expected,
especially during the late summer and early fall. In the Ashley River
the toxic materials discharged from the industrial complex would be
dispersed and diluted at a much slower rate than at present and
would create a hazard for fish and other aquatic organisms.
Existing municipal waste disposal practices will be greatly
modified before the proposed diversion scheme can be initiated. In
1963, the South Carolina legislature passed a law making it illegal
for any person or political entity to discharge untreated sewage into
tidal waters in Charleston County. It is thus anticipated that municipal
treatment plants in the harbor area will be constructed soon. A
minimum of primary treatment, properly operated, will remove essentially
all settleable solids and will reduce B0D loads up to 40 percent. If
outfall lines from proposed treatment plants are properly located to
disperse the effluent, i.e., in areas of the harbor where a high degree
-------
10
of mixing is expected to occur, and if the effluents are adequately
chlorinated, there may be no buildup of nutrients from municipal
sources in the harbor and the bacterial pollution will be essentially
eliminated. However, improper treatment plant operations and/or
improperly located outfalls could lead to areas of high nutrient
concentrations and creation of a potential for nuisance plankton
growth. A need for a higher degree of treatment may result.
Pollution in Charleston Harbor will not be adequately controlled
until the industries are subjected to the same regulatory procedures
as those in effect for municipalities. Elimination of toxic waste
discharges by plants on the Ashley River will be necessary to maintain
the waters of the Ashley River as a suitable fish habitat. Wastes
from the West Virginia Pulp and Paper Company are the major cause of
the oxygen—consuming sludge beds in the lower reaches of the Cooper
River. Worse conditions of dissolved oxygen depletion in the Cooper
can be expected with proposed reduction of freshwater inflow unless
adequate waste treatment practices are adopted by the paper plant.
While the proposed rediversion of the Cooper River would decrease
the capacity of certain areas of the harbor to assimilate wastes,
it would not be the cause of a pollution problem. This problem
already exists because the cities and industries are using the
harbor as a repository for untreated waste products. Only through the
control of these waste products can the quality of the waters in
Charleston }Iarbor be improved for the enhancement of all beneficial uses.
-------
11
CONCLUSION S
PRESENT CONDITIONS
1. Under the existing fresh water flow conditions, Charleston Harbor
is a stratified or salt—wedge type estuary with two well—defined
density layers.
2. The present practice of discharging untreated domestic and industrial
wastes into the harbor has resulted in moderate pollution throughout
the system, as evidenced by (a) dissolved oxygen depletion to
less than 50 percent saturation, (b) by high concentrations of
fecal and total collform organisms with total counts above 1000
organisms per 100 ml, frequently as high as 30,000 organisms per
100 ml, and (c) by extensive sludge bed deposits.
3. The reduction of dissolved oxygen to 52 percent saturation in the
harbor is predominantly caused by the chemical and biochemical
stabilization of the organic materials in the sludge—silt deposits
as shown by low BOD values in the water averaging one mg/i and
the high oxygen uptake rates of the sediments ranging from one to
five milligrams of oxygen per day per gram of dry sediment.
4. The major source of dissolved oxygen for stabilizing waste products
is from the large volumes of oceanic inflow in the salt wedge.
The tidal prism yolume is approximately 350,000 acre—feet.
5. The most critical areas from the pollution standpoint are the
lower reaches of the Ashley and Cooper Rivers, which receive
untreated industrial wastes as well as raw municipal sewage. The
wastes discharged into the Ashley River principally by chemical
and fertilizer industries contain organophosphorus compounds,
-------
12
heavy metals, and phenols, all of which create a potentially toxic
aquatic environment. The West Virginia Pulp and Paper Company is
the major source of industrial wastes discharged into the Cooper
River. The paper mill wastes contain fibers, suspended solids and
dissolved organic material, all of which contribute materially to
the depletion of dissolved oxygen.
FUTURE CONDITIONS
1. Reduction of flow in the Cooper River to an average of 3000 cfs
as proposed by the Corps of Engineers would change the estuary
from a salt—wedge type to a vertically mixed type. The ratio of
surface to bottom chlorides would approach 1.0 and vertical mixing
would be unrestricted throughout the harbor.
2. The change in estuary type would result in more rapid mixing and
flushing of materials from the lower or seaward portions of the
harbor. Based on model dye studies, mean residence time in the
lower harbor would decrease from seven to two tidal cycles with
a river flow decrease from 30,500 to 3500 cfs (Table 14.).
However, the lower reaches of the tributary rivers in the upper
harbor would have poorer mixing characteristics and would retain
materials for a longer period of time resulting in a reduced
assimilative capacity. Mean residence time in the upper harbor
would increase from 5.4 to 30 tidal cycles for the above reductions
in flow (Table 14). The net effect of these changes would be an
improvement in water quality in the lower harbor but a deterioration
in water quality in the upper harbor. The most troublesome area
would be the lower part of the Cooper River, where septic conditions
-------
13
would probably exist during summer and early fall months unless
a substantial reduction is made in industrial waste loads entering
this reaeh of the river.
3. Construction and proper operation of at least primary sewage treatment
facilities (with chlorination of effluent) by all political entities
discharging municipal wastes to the Charleston Harbor system as
required by South Carolina law would reduce average bacterial
pollution in most areas to levels below the limits deemed safe for
water contact sports by the State of South Carolina (1000 total
coliform organisms/100 ml). Untreated wastes from storm drains,
however, would cause bacterial pollution in localized areas.
4. The outfall of the proposed City of Charleston primary sewage
treatment plant is being located near the Battery. If this outfall
discharges into the Ashley River it could produce such high
concentrations of polluting materials in the river that a higher
degree of treatment might be required to avoid severe damage to
water quality, particularly with respect to the buildup of nutrients
sufficient to stimulate heavy algal growth. Location of the outfall
in a more open area of the harbor where more thorough mixing and
consequent flushout is prevalent should preclude the possibility of
nutrient buildup.
5. The dissolved oxygen depleting effects of the sludge—silt deposits
will continue for an indeterminate future period regardless of the
waste treatment programs adopted. The severity of this problem
will depend on such factors as waste disposal practices and amount
of dredging for channel maintenance.
-------
14
6. The proposed reduction in fresh water inflow from the Cooper River
would not cause a pollution problem. A condition of pollution
already exists due to the reliance on waste dilution instead of
treatment.
7. To restore the water quality of Charleston Harbor, the most
immediate need is for at least primary treatment by industry as
veil as by municipalities. Provision for expansion to secondary
treatment should be planned; an even higher degree of treatment
may be required of troublesome wastes or of wastes discharged into
critical areas.
-------
15
DESCRIPTION OF STUDY AREA
The City of Charleston on the southeast coast of South Carolina
was built on the peninsula between the Ashley and Cooper Rivers,
and its harbor has been a center of commerce since early colonial
days. Existing ground elevation throughout the city is extremely
low, varying between 5 and 15 feet above mean sea level. North
of the city is the unincorporated area of North Charleston which
contains most of the industry in the Charleston area. To the
west, across the Ashley River, are modern residential subdivisions
and attendant shopping centers. Eastward from the city, across
the upper reaches of the harbor, are the communities of Mount
Pleasant and Sullivan’s Island.
The population of Charleston County, which encompasses most
of the study area, was 220,000 in 1960; this includes 76,925
in the city of Charleston. The city itself cannot expand much
on the original peninsula because it is confined by either water
or political boundaries. However, some of the area west of
the Ashley has been annexed, and any further expansion will
probably be due to further annexation In this area. It has been
estimated by 1-lazen and Sawyer, consulting engineers, that the
1970 city population will be approximately 115,000 and the county
population will grow to 240,000.
The military occupies a prominent role in the economic base
of the Charleston area. The Charleston Navy yard on the Cooper
River serves as a home for destroyer. mine sweeper and submarine
fleets and has one of the larger shipyards in the Southeast.
In addition the Navy has an ammunition depot upstream from the
-------
16
Navy yard, the Army Transportation Corps has a supply and storage
depot also on the Cooper River, and the Charleston Air Force
Base near the upper Ashley River maintains both transport and
defense squadrons.
Industrial development in the Charleston area is he]ping
to diversify the economic base. West Virginia Pulp and Paper
Company and Virginia—Carolina Chemical Corporation are the two
largest manufacturing industries. There are other smaller businesses
as well as light industry such as Manhattan Shirt Company,
Lockheed—Georgia Corporation, and Avco Lycoming which will begin
operations late in 1966. The industrial development of Charleston
County is projected to grow in the future because of the large
quantities of land and fresh water available and because of transportation
facilities, especially in the Port of Charleston.
Charleston Harbor has at area of approximately 14 square
miles with depths generally ranging between 10 and 25 feet at mean
low tide. Navigation channels are maintained to a depth of 35
feet. Hydraulic characteristics of the harbor are predominantly
controlled by tides and fresh water inflow modified by some minor
wind effects. The tidal prism is estimated at 350,000 acre—
feet and the average fresh water inflow is between 18,000 and
20,000 cfs based on 1964—1965 records.
Of the three major tributary rivers, the Ashley, the Cooper
and the Wando, the Cooper is the predominant source of inflow.
The Ashley, a coastal river, meanders along the west side of
the city, draining an area of about 350 square miles. The flow
-------
17
in the Ashley River has not been measured since it is affected by
tides its entire length. Based on salinity measurements made during
the study, the inflow of the Ashley is negligible in comparison
to the tidal exchange. The Wando River is similar to the Ashley,
with a drainage area of 115 square miles. This tributary, which
is tidal for its entire length, enters the east side of the harbor
in a joint confluence with the Cooper River. The fresh water
inflow from the Wando is also considered a negligible contribution
to the system.
The Cooper River is the most important of the three. It
was originally a coastal river with a drainage basin of 720 square
miles and an estimated average flow of about 200 cfs. Diversion
of the Santee system into the upper Cooper added an additional
drainage area of 14,700 square miles and increased the average
flows to more than 15,000 cfs. The regulated discharges in the
Cooper for the past six years are shown in Table 1.
All three tributary streams are important to navigation.
The lower reach of the Ashley River is part of the Intracoastal
Waterway: on the east bank of the Ashley just above the waterway
is the Charleston Municipal Marina. The Wando River has a major
shipyard facility approximately 12 miles upstream from the harbor.
And on the west bank of the Cooper River extending upstream for
about 10 miles from the confluence with the harbor, there are
the major commercial terminals and the Navy facilities.
-------
18
TABLE 1
HYDRO PLANT DISCHARGES — PINOPOLIS DAN
1960 — 1965
MONTHLY AVERAGES
(in cfs)
1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965
January 25,142 15,677 24,428 12,926 22,944 25,949
February 26,319 15,355 25,953 17,101 24,994 25,469
March 26,979 24,914 26,238 23,641 26,831 27,410
April 23,820 25,909 26,992 16,027 27,282 25,206
May 19,825 24,983 13,835 9,041 18,319 15,271
June 10,973 10,775 14,392 12,596 13,069 19,824
July 9,771 19,479 13,238 14,401 14,194 18,978
August 13,402 13,880 9,653 10,923 20,429 17,588
September 16,106 17,187 6,381 5,016 23,426 11,401
October 10,240 8,993 6,419 6,674 25,758 11,218
November 9,180 6,699 8,700 7,368 24,892 10,556
December 10,457 14,666 15,177 13,461 22,657 13,425
202,214 198,517 191,406 149,175 264,795 222,295
Monthly
Avg. Flow 16,851 16,543 15,950 12,476 22,066 18,524
-------
19
DESCRIPTION OF STUDY
SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES
In accordance with the specific request for information by the
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, a study program was planned to obtain
necessary data. This program had three specific objectives. The
first was to collect sufficient environmental data on the physical,
chemical, biological and hydraulic characteristics of the harbor
in order to establish a study datum. The second was to develop
a model of the estuarine system which would describe the interactions
of measured characteristics with the fresh water inflow and tidal
forces. The third objective was to predict the water quality
patterns that would exist under the proposed modifications of
streamfiow regulation and foreseeable development of the Charleston
area.
STUDY NETHODS
Field and Laboratory Nethods
The Charleston Harbor Study was designed for a multiphased
approach to the analysis of a complex estuarine system.
Initiation of the Charleston Harbor Study involved a unique
solution to the problem of obtaining laboratory facilities. The
deckhouse of a large warehouse barge was remodeled to contain
a complete laboratory and office space for project staff. Utilization
of the floating installation facilitated the conduct of the study
by eliminating problems of sample handling, sample boat mooring,
-------
2(1
and access to the study area.
A preliminary reconnaissance was made to locate sampling
stations, to determine significant water quality parameters,
to enable laboratory personnel to check existing analytical procedures,
and to make modifications where necessary. Table 2 shows the
water quality parameters initially tested, the ones measured
during the intensive studies, and comments on the few which were
discontinued. Table 3 lists the laboratory analytical procedures
used and the modifications that were made to adapt them for estuarine
samples of varying salinity.
Two types of sampling programs were utilized. One was a
routine weekly program, and the other was an intensive program
of sampling each station on a four—hour frequency for a five—
day period. The routine program was used to monitor the harbor
for sudden changes in quality patterns, and the intensive program
was used to develop data which could be statistically analyzed
to show the quality patterns and reflect the effects of the system
dynamics.
Ten sampling stations were selected to develop a water quality
base for the harbor. Criteria for choosing these stations were:
(1) the station had to be in an area that would be affected by
the proposed diversion (within the tidal range); (2) the station
had to be accessible during all tide conditions: (3) samples
collected from these stations could not be influenced unduly
by external factors such as nearby waste discharges; and (4) all
stations (Figure 2) had to be located within an area that could be
-------
TABLE 2
WATER QUALITY PARAMETERS MEASURED
Parameters Used During
Item Initially Intensive
No. Measured Phase? Remarks
1 Dissolved oxygen Yes Determined on all samples collected.
(D.o.)
2 Biochemical oxygen Reduced Surveys LA and AB;!/determinations on all samples
demand (SOD) frequency collected; surveys B, C, D and E, reduced to stations
1, 3, 4, 8, 9 and 13 (surface and bottom) on 8—hour
frequency. Test discontinued due to low values
observed in samples and laboratory personnel schedule.
3 Chemical oxygen Discontinued Values of less than 100 mg/i in salt water are not
demand (COD) accurate and are meaningless.
4 Chloride (Cl) Reduced Determined on cycle 1, 2 and 3 of Survey B. Conductivity
frequency measured on all other samples collected and converted
to chloride equivalence.
5. Conductance Yes (See remarks under chloride above)
6 pH Reduced Determined on all samples collected during Surveys LA,
frequency AB and E. Reduced due to consistently neutral pH values.
7 Turbidity Reduced Determined on all samples collected during Surveys LA
and AB. Laboratory personnel schedule prohibited
turbidity determinations for Surveys B, C, D and E.
!/Survey identification in Table 5
-------
Table 2 (Contin )
8 Total suspended Reduced Determined on all samples collected during surveys AA
solids and volatile frequency and AB. Laboratory personnel schedule prohibited
suspended solids solids determinations for surveys B, C, D and E.
9 Ammonia nitrogen Yes Determinations on all samples collected.
10 Nitrite nitrogen Discontinued No measurable nitrite present in Charleston Harbor.
11 Nitrate nitrogen Yes Determined on all samples collected.
12 Organic nitrogen Reduced frequency
13 Ortho and total Reduced Ortho Phosphates discontinued due to laboratory personnel
phosphates frequency schedule. Total phosphates determined for all samples
collected during Surveys AA, AB, B, C, D, and some of
E (cycles 1, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25 and 30). Laboratory
schedule forced reduction for Survey E.
14 Total coliforms Reduced Surveys AA and AB, bacteriological examination made
and fecal coliforms frequency on all samples collected at StatIons 1, 3, 4, 8, 9
and 10 (Surface and Bottom): Surveys B, C, D and E,
bacteriological examinations made on all samples
collected at Stations 1, 3, 4, 8, 9 and 13 (Surface
and Bottom).
N.)
N J
-------
TABLE 3
LABORATORY ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES
Parameter Test Initially Used Modifications of Test Reference
1. Dissolved Winkler Alsterberg Floc settled only one time, 300 Standard Methods for the
Oxygen azide modification ml sample automatically titrated Examination of Water and
with 0.038 N sodium thiosulfate Wastewater , 11th Ed., 1960.
2, Biochemical Dilution Method None Standard Methods , 11th Ed.
Oxygen Demand
3. Chemical Dichromate ref lux None 1) Standard Methods , 11th Ed.
Oxygen Demand method with mercuric 2) Dobbs, R.A., Williams, R.T.,
sulfate modification “Elimination of Chloride
Interference in the Chemical
Oxygen Demand Test,” Analytical
Chemistry , , 1064—7, (1963).
3) Chemical Analytical Procedures ,
Raritan Bay Project,
4. Chloride Mercuric Nitrate 0.2000N NaC1 standard and Standard Methods , 10th Ed.
method O.2000N Hg (NO 3 ) 2 used.
Sample automatically titrated
with or without indicator.
5. Conductance Conductivity Cell Resistance in ohms measured on Standard Methods , 11th Ed.
method Industrial Instruments, Inc.,
Model RC—8 conductivity bridge
at temperatures less than 30°C.
Data converted to specific con-
ductance at 25°C with a temperature
specific conductance table prepared
by Chas. Harbor Project.
6. pH Glass Electrode Fisher 13—639—90 combination Standard, Methods , 11th Ed.
method electrodes
-------
TABLE 3 — cont’d
Parameter Test Initially Used Modifications of Test Reference
7. Turbidity Jackson Candle method None Standard Methods , 11th Ed.
8. Total Suspended Cooch Crucible method Reeve angle glass fiber filter, Standard Methods , 11th Ed.
Solids and 934 All, size 2.4 cm employed
Volatile Suspended
solids
9. Ammonia Nitrogen PreFloc and direct 2 ml zinc sulfate and 5 ml of Standard Methods , 11th Ed.
Nesslerization sodium hydroxide solution added
to 200 ml sample
10. Nitrite Nitrogen PreFloc and sulfuric 2 ml zinc sulfate and 5 ml of Standard Methods , 11th Ed.
acid—naphthylamine sodium hydroxide to 200 ml sample
hydrochloride method for PreFloc treatment. pH adjust.
made with 10% HC1 solution
11. Nitrate Nitrogen Modified Brucine Reagent blank is not boiled 1) Standard Methods , 11th Ed.
method 2) Jenkins, D., and Medsker, L.L.,
“Brucine Method for Determina-
tion of Nitrate in Ocean,
Estuarine, and Fresh Waters,”
Analytical Chemistry , 36,
610—12, (1964).
3) Finger, J.}I., “Nitrate Deter-
mination in Saline and
Estuarine Waters: Comparison
of Hydrozine Reduction and
Brucine Modification Methods,”
Laboratory Investigation No.3,
Tech. Adv. & Inves. Section,
TSB, Robt. A. Taft Sani. Eng.
Center, Cinn., Ohio.
-------
TABLE 3 — cont’d
Parameter Test Initially Used Modifications of Test Reference
12. Organic Nitrogen Micro Kjeldahl diges— None 1) Standard Methods , 11th Ed.
tion with mercuric 2) Kabat, E.A., and Mayer, M.M.,
sulfate catalyst— Experimental tmmunochemis try .
Nesslerization method C.C. Thomas Pubi., 2nd Print.
(1953).
13. Ortho and Total Stannous chloride Technique Improvements Standard Methods , 11th Ed.
Phosphate method
14. Total Coliform Membrane filter None 1) Standard Methods , Uth Ed.
method with M—Endo 2) “Recent Developments in Water
Broth procedure Microbiology”, short course
conducted by Water Supply and
Pollution Control training
Program, P HS, Robt. A. Taft
Sanitary Eng. Center, Cinn.,
Ohio.
15. Fecal Coliforin Membrane filter None (Same as #14 above)
method with M—FC
Broth procedure
M
-------
26
sampled in a time period less than one—half the tidal frequency. It
should be noted that sampling station number 10 was replaced
by station 13 after the first and second intensive surveys because
of the influence of the paper mill wastes. Since the harbor
was stratified during much of the sampling period, samples were
collected at the surface and at a depth of 20 to 25 feet at each
of the ten stations.
The program development was devoted to formulating procedures
for a fast, efficient nethod for collecting samples. The submersible
pump technique which supplied a constant sampling source was adopted
for collecting all samples.
A total of six intensive surveys covering a large range
of both tidal conditions and river inflows was conducted during
the study. These surveys are summarized in Table 4. While the
laboratory was operated on a 24—hour basis to minimize the delay
between collection and analysis for dissolved oxygen, BOD, and
coliform organisms, all of the samples collected during each
intensive survey could not be analyzed immediately. Portions
of each sample collected were preserved for nutrient analyses
performed in the periods between and after completion of intensive
surveys.
Results from preliminary analyses of data collected during
the early intensive surveys and from routine monitoring indicated
that several areas required special investigation. To obtain
a better understanding of the water quality environment, a series
-------
TABLE 4
INTENSIVE SAMPLING PROGRAM
intehsive Survey Dates Survey No. of Parameters Total Number of Average Cooper Mean Tidal
Designation Conducted Measured Samples Collected River Discharges Range (ft.)
(cfe)
*!Ji M.irch 3 through 13 600 27,588 5.22
March 7, 1965
March 23 through 13 600 27,749 4.08
March 27, 1965
B June 21 through 10 600 26,290 4.09
June 25, 1965
C July 19 through 9 600 19,295 4.11
July 23, 1965
D August 16 through 9 600 16,235 4.42
August 20, 1965
E Sept. 20 through 9 600 13,486 5.76
Sept. 24, 1965
* Surveys AA and AB represent the first and last 5 day periods of a 30 day intensive survey conducted
during the month of March.
-------
28
of special laboratory and field studies were initiated to develop
information on certain segments of the system interactions. These
studies are described in Table 5.
Quality control was a prime consideration for all aspects
of the Charleston Harbor Study. Specific sampling techniques
were developed for the project and careful supervision was maintained
over all sampling operations. Chemists either conducted or closely
supervised each phase of the laboratory operations from initial
sample handling to the reporting of the data. A system of cross—
checking was maintained throughout the study to eliminate any
errors (a record of all laboratory determinations and calculations
was kept on bench cards). The final data output from the laboratory
was a double—checked sheet made ready for preliminary analysis.
Data Analysis
The data analysis scheme was primarily designed to interpret
the results of the intensive surveys. Data evolved from such
a high frequency sampling program are much more reliable for
describing the dynamic characteristics of an estuarine environment
than are random grab samples. The constant change of circulation
patterns in the system caused by the predominant natural forces
of wind, tide and river inflow created a statistical distribution
of any measured water quality parameter with a large variance.
High frequency time series measurements were necessary to describe
this distribution adequately.
-------
TABLE 5
SPECIAL STUDIES
Title of Study
Purpose
Description
Organic Carbon—
Organic Nitrogen
Ratios of Sediments
To identify the nature and source of
sediment deposits in Charleston
Harbor.
Sediments collected from 61 stations in the
harbor and tributary rivers were analyzed for
organic carbon and organic nitrogen content. Data
produced from this investigation characterized the
sediment deposits as to organic or inorganic and
permitted a differentiation of sources of organic
material in the sludge deposits as to industrial or
domestic origin.
Flocculation
Phenomena
To confirm the importance of the
interfacial flocculation phenomena
in forming the sediment deposits and
to determine the effect of reduced
colloidal materials from the Cooper
River on sludge deposit formations.
Various proportions of river water and sea water
were mixed in the laboratory and the rate of
change of suspended solid concentration was measured.
Only preliminary tests were conducted due to a lack
of manpower for completing the study.
Salinity Profile
To substantiate the degree of
salinity stratification at the main
sampling stations and to describe
the longitudinal slack water salinity
profile.
Vertical salinity profiles were measured at 3 feet
intervals at each sampling station during high and
low water slack tides. Longitudinal slack water
prof!les were measured along the channel centerlines
at the surface and at a depth of 25 feet.
Dye Dispersion
To obtain information on the movement
and mixing characteristics of the
water masaes in the harbor to
verify the hydraulic model data.
Two dye releases were made in the harbor, one in
the entrance jetties and the other in the Ashley
River. In both cases all traces of the dye disap-
peared shortly after the release, providing a
negligible amount of information for model
verification.
-------
TABLE 5 — cont’d
Title of Study
Purpose
Description
Hydraulic Model
Verification
To determine(l) if the hydraulic
model of Charleston Harbor would
reproduce the salinity distributions
observed in the prototype during the
intensive surveys and(2) if the model
could be used as a tool for future
low inflow predictions of salinity
distribution,
Salinity measurements were made in the hydraulic
model using the same fresh water inflow hydro—
graphs and the same sampling schedule utilized
during the last four intensive prototype surveys.
The model data were compared statistically with
the prototype data to ascertain the degree of
similitude,
Sample Preservation
To determine the effects of preser-
vation of nutrient samples on the
accuracy of the analytical results.
A series of samples of known nutrient concentra-
tions were preserved and then analyzed at a given
frequency to cieterrvtine the effectiveness of the
preservation technique. Preservation effects were
checked for amy,ionia nitrogen, nitrate nitrogen,
total nitrogen and total phosphate determinations.
Free Carbon
Dioxide
To determine if gas bubbles observed
at the water surface were carbon
dioxide and to investigate the
carbonate—carbon dioxide balance in
estuarine waters.
Water samples collected under mineral oil were
analyzed for free carbon dioxide concentration
using a Natelson Microgasometer.
Organic Carbon
To measure the amount of organic
carbon in solution in the harbor
water, to confirm whether the results
obtained from BOD and COD tests are
reasonable or are in error.
Samples collected at regular stations in the
harbor were analyzed with a Beckman Carbonaceous
Analyzer.
C
-------
TABLE 5 — cont’d
Title of Study
Purpose
Description
Oxygen Uptake
by Sediments
To measure quantitatively in the
laboratory the oxygen utilized in
stabilizing the organic materials
in sediments collected from harbor
stations.
Sediment samples collected with a Peterson dredge
were brought into the laboratory and placed in
five gallon carboys filled with fresh seawater.
Oxygen consumption with respect to time was
measured in both mixed and non—mixed situations
to establish the range of potential dissolved oxygen
depletion by the sediments. In addition, moisture
content, percent volatile solids, organic carbon,
and organic nitrogen determinations were made on
the sediment sartples.
In situ Benthic
Respiration
measurements
To measure quantitatively the oxygen
consumption with respect to time at
the water—sediment interface and to
develop relationships between organic
content of sediment deposits, the
laboratory oxygen uptake studies
and in situ oxygen utilization,
An experimental benthic respiration chamber was
constructed to make in situ measurements. This
semicircular chamber was lowered over the side of
a boat until it rested firmly on the bottom.
Measurements of dissolved oxygen were made
periodically to determine the depletion.
‘A,
-------
32
A scheme of data analysis was used by which the data were
initially interpreted using fundamental statistical principles
of data handling and analysis. While this approach introduces
an element of complexity in the calculations not usually present
in the analysis of field survey data, it does provide a sound
means for determining the observed degree of variation in resuits,
thus providing a reliable starting point for evaluation of the
results.
The data obtained for each parameter in each intensive survey
were treated similarly in the basic statistical computations.
The first step in the analysis was the computation of the descriptive
statistics of each record obtained. The statistics computed
were the mean, : the variance, s 2 ; the standard deviation, s;
the skewness, L; and the kurtosis, K.
To provide a common mathematical basis for evaluation of
observed frequency distributions, the coefficients of the Pearson
theoretical frequency distribution were also calculated for each
record. This distribution was selected because it is a general
analytic representation of a wide variety of possible observed
distributions. The Pearson frequency distribution is discussed
further in the Technical Appendix. 1
The observed frequency distribution for each record was also
plotted for ranges of one standard deviation from the mean.
1/The Technical ppendix referred to is a separate document containing
a detailed discussion on field operations, analytical procedures,
special studies, data analysis, and also containing the bulk of
basic data.
-------
33
Each parameter was next subjected to an analysis of variance
based on two crossed classifications with replication. The analysis
was made between surveys and stations usinc’, first all surveys
and stations, and then pairs and other submultiples of surveys
and stations for the entire body of data available for each parameter.
Significance at the five per cent and one per cent fiducial
levels was examined.
Analysis of variance on each record was performed to answer
these questions:
(1) Was there a significant change in the statistics of
each water quality parameter between surveys at the same stations?
That is, did each of the six surveys represent sampling of a
different physical environment, or might two or more of the surveys
have been used as representing the same environment? A lack
of significance fri the F—ratio between surveys would indicate
that the surveys being considered could be regarded as one survey,
and that the data obtained were all samples of the same physical
environment.
(2) Was there a significant change in the statistics of
each water quality parameter between stations for each survey?
That is, were the stations chosen sufficiently far apart that
the observed changes in parameters between the stations represent
changes in the environment between them, or may some of the stations
be grouped together in the data analysis? A lack of significance
in the F—ratio between stations would indicate that the station
records concerned are actually measurements of the same environment
and may be treated as such.
-------
34
(3) Were the statistics of differences between the same
parameters at different stations the same for all surveys or
sequential pairs of surveys? For example, was the change in
chlorides between stations 1 and 2 the same for survey B as for
survey C? A lack of significance in the F—ratio for station—
survey interaction would indicate that the relationships between
stations were similar for the surveys concerned.
(4) For the environmental factors (river discharge, tide
height, air temperature, solar radiation, etc.), which factors
showed significant changes between surveys? A lack of significance
in the F—ratio between surveys would indicate that the environmental
factor analyzed did not change and could be regarded as having
similar effects during each survey.
The results of the analysis of variance were used as a basis
for selecting pairs of environmental and water quality parameters
on which harmonic covariant or spectral analysis was run.
The first step of the spectral analysis of the intensive
survey data was the computation of the individual power spectrum
of each record. This power spectrum analysis is essentially
the sorting of the total variance of the record into its component
frequencies resulting in a delineation of those parts of the
variance that recur at constant time intervals as well as the
part that Is random in character. For example, the analysis
of a Continuous chloride record of an estuarine. sampling station
would show a sinusoidal fluctuation about the mean. Spectral
analysis would show a predominant variance recurring at approximately
-------
35
a 12—hour frequency coinciding with the tide frequency. If the
record were sufficiently long, gradual chloride variations in
the sea water would be shown by the occurrence of a variance
component at a long term frequency. Thus the spectral analysis
would give much more insight into the probable environmental
factors affecting the chloride concentrations.
The second step of the spectral analysis was the computation
of the cross—spectra which is a comparison of pairs of individual
power spectra or a covariant harmonic analysis of two time—series
records. The cross—spectral computations provide a measure of
correlation or coherence of the two records; they show the temporal
relationship between respective maxima or minima of the two records;
and they give a quantitative estimate of the amount of variation
in one record that is associated with a similar variation in
the second record. The cross—spectral computations are a statistical
manipulation of two time—series records in which it is assumed
that one of the records is of a causative factor and the other
a record of the resulting condition. For example, in the cross—
spectral analysis of a river discharge record and a salinity record at
a point in the harbor, the river discharge would be regarded as a
causative factor and the salinity as a resulting condition; this
does not imply that river discharge is assumed to be the only causative
factor in the system. The results of the computation are an empirical
evaluation of how closely changes in river discharge are related to
changes in salinity. These computations do not explain what is
-------
36
happening in the environment, but the results are a sound and detailed
analysis of the data and provide a firm foundation for deduction of
mechanisms governing the system.
The pairs of parameters chaser for analysis in later sections of
this report were considered those most significant for determining
water quality conditions in the harbor.
-------
37
RESULTS OF STUDY
PRESENT WATER QUALITY
While the general character of wastes entering the Charleston
Harbor system is easily established from the nature of the dominant
waste sources, the specific effects of the combination of effluents
on water quality and the significant sanitary parameters showing
these effects had to be determined from field investigations
and laboratory analyses.
Initially a broad spectrum of chemical and biochemical determinations
was run at a large number of sampling stations in the harbor
and in the Cooper and Ashley Rivers. As the sampling program
progressed, 10 locations (Figure 2) were chosen as being typical
of conditions in various parts of the system. Each of these
locations was sampled just beneath the surface and at 20 or 25
foot depths. The determination of present water quality and
predictions of future water quality are based on observations
obtained from these locations unless otherwise stated.
Routine Surveys
The results of the routine monitoring program are useful in
illustrating seasonal changes. These results are summarized in
Appendix Table A—i. In general, there was a definite worsening of
dissolved oxygen values and coliform numbers from the beginning of
summer through early fall. At those times, temperatures were highest
and river discharges were lowest.
-------
38
Some parameters remained fairly constant from season to
season. The 5—day BOD values remained low throughout the year
in the order of 1 mg/i. Nutrient concentrations, characterized
by phosphate and nitrogen compounds (Table 3) also remained at
low values, e.g., ammonia, 0.2 — 0.8 mg/i: nitrate, <0.1 — 0.2
mg/i; total phosphate, 0.02 — 0.1 mg/i.
Intensive Surveys
The results of the intensive survey program permitted a
more detailed examination of conditions for the 5—day periods
of each intensive survey. The mean values for D.0. (per cent
saturation), temperature, chlorides, total coliforms, and fecal
coliforms are presented in Figures 3 through 7, respectively,
for survey D (August). The mean values from 30 samples for all
surveys are presented in Appendix Tables B—i through B—5, respectively.
The mean ratios of surface to bottom chlorides at each station
are presented for all surveys in Appendix Table B—6.
Examination of the D.0. results for these six surveys, particularly
those in Figure 3, show that there was a progressive decrease
of D.0. per cent saturation from the mouth of the harbor (Station
1) into the Cooper and Ashley Rivers. This decrease was particularly
pronounced in the Cooper River (Stations 1, 5, 7, 8, 13, 10).
Dissolved oxygen concentrations lower than 50 per cent saturation
(2.7 mg/i) were found in the Cooper River during surveys D and
E (August and September).
Analyses of variance run on combinations of surface and
bottom stations showed that there were significant differences
-------
669surface
bottom
Sta 9
Is
6 wrfgç
6 bo1tom
Sta 7
1,,.
Sta4-% _ 0
‘“I
hutes Fol
7///
I,,,,
‘I
‘“I ,
/ Ft Sumter
,,,,/,,,,/,__,,.
-_.,,,,,,,f,,, / ///////// // /, / /.‘ / /// //. # #
• //W ///
• /// / #/ // / /7 7//////7//s/.’l7/ 7 #.’////.
‘/ / /7 7 / 77//I /////7 17/I777/7 /#/77#
- - 7/7/7/7//f //i ,.
6p5 ifpce
Sta 5 6albottom
7ZIbo?tom
Sta
SCHEMATIC OF CHARLESTON HARBOR
Mean Values of Percent Saturation of
Dissolved Oxygen
Study D
St
Sta 3
Sta
FIGURE 3
-------
28.9 Surface
28.6 bottom
Sta 9
Sta 7
‘‘‘I
‘‘“F
‘I’, ,
F,,,
F,,,
‘‘F,
‘‘I,.
Ft. Surnte r
‘/ FFl7 ’ ,l ’
,, . ,, ,/,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
/
‘I,, ,f ,f, ,FF, ,,/////fFF/F.9##’ #/#/Fl// ,
‘ i/ /F l
,,,,_,,,,/ / //,,f /l/ //// /////f///
, 28.5 surface
a 2.9 bottom
28.2 surface
2 6 bottom
FIGURE 4
Sta
0
SCHEMATIC OF CHARLESTON HARBOR
Mean Values of Water Temperatures
In Degrees Centigrade
Study D
Is
Sta3
Sta
-------
“I,,, __________________
// // /
St a44 4’-
0
t. umter
,,,,, ,,, / ////,
‘,,I,,,,,,,,,,,,/, ,,/,,,//,//,,,
•// ///f//#I fi/ /f/////////////////l//.
DEPT. OF THE INTERIOR
Sta
0
FWPCA
SCHEMATIC OF CHARLESTON HARBOR
Mean Values of Chlorides
In Parts per Thousand
Study D
776surftice
57 bottom
Sta 9
Is
S
4
Sta 7
9O5 urf ace
Sta 5 I3.94bottom
Sta 3
hutes FoI
JiJ3 surface
I623bottom
Sta 2
FIGURE 5
-------
Sta
7
Sta 5
tes Folly
23’i()
Sta 9
Ft.
ciirfci e
b m
60.80 surface
1-.,,,
,I. , #/#,
,,, ,,,,.#I.,
., ,,_,,,,,,, -
_,,,, ,,,,,,,1,,,.#
0
.,,, ,,,.,,,,I_.#,,,,
Sumter
I d
Id / ,//// //II// / //,,,
Id / ///// / 1/
/ Ill,/
/
1 /////////
, ,,,,
• /////// I,,f
,,,,, ,,,,,,#.,,,I,,,,,,,I,I,,,,
1, 1,,
Sta
SCHEMATIC OF CHARLESTON HARBOR
Per
Mean Values of Total Coliforms
tOO ml.
Study
D
Sta
Is
Sta 6
Sta 3
Sta
FIGURE 6
-------
DEPT OF THE INTERIOR FWPCA
380 surface
190 bottom
Sta 9
utes Fol
880
Sta4 -
‘I,,
‘I,,,
urn er
1 1//I/I//I//I // / I/f/If I//I l .
‘f//If//f//f/I If/I 1 I//I//f//I// i.
‘I//fl/f/f//I I/I/I//If f//If/I//I / f/I ,.
h/i
,// h l/Il/h/b/ ,
I/f
l///// f/f/f f / I/hII///f /I/II I/I //f /1/.
1340 surface
250 bottom
“I, ,
I/ /I l/ /F
I , #Fd
,
I ‘/// /h////I/ i ,,
0 # 1//f//Il/ /f f### ,i#
• 1 f/ f
Sta
0
SCHEMATIC OF CHARLESTON HARBOR
Mean Values of Fecal Coliforms
Per 100 ml.
Study D
a
Is
Sta 6
Sta
7
Sta 5
Sta3
Sta 2
FIGURE 7
-------
39
in the distributions of data obtained at nearly all sampling stations.
These results showed that the surface and bottom stations represented
regimes operating independently of each other; that is, the D.O.
percent saturation near the bottom at a particular station is controlled
by a different combination of environmental factors than is that near
the surface.
The differences between surface and bottom chloride concentrations
found during these surveys can be correlated with differences between
surface and bottom D.O. concentrations. Chloride concentrations of
about 19 gm/liter may be regarded as representing undiluted oceanic
water, while lower concentrations represent dilution of this
water with fresh water or waste effluent inflows.
The results in Appendix Table B—6 show that there were significant
differences between surface and bottom chloride concentrations
at all stations for most of the intensive survey program. Survey
AB exhibited the lowest ratios, running from 0.21 to 0.52 for
all stations in the harbor. Only far up the Cooper River at
station 10 were higher ratios observed up to 0.89 and 0.76. While
no quantitative means for re1atin the degree of stratification
to estuarine type have been developed, ratios of this magnitude
indicated a strong stratification during survey AB.
The progress of chloride ratio magnitude toward a value
of one for surveys B, C, D, E shoved a gradual transition toward
a vertically homogenenus regime during the study period. In
the Ashley River durinc survey E there was vertical homogeneity
for all practical purposes (mean chloride ratios of 0.933 and
0.918 at stations 2 and 3).
-------
40
The relationship of the chloride ratios between surveys
AA and AR was striking (Appendix Table B—6), especially since
river discharges and other environmental factors were similar
during these two surveys. Low chloride values throughout the
system during survey AA suggested that the estuary may have been
in a period of transition from a partially mixed or vertically
homogeneous system to a strongly stratified system, or that there
may have been an abnormal decrease in oceanic salinity offshore.
Since river discharges in the Cooper River were high for several
months before studies began (above 22,000 cfs), it seems likely
that any transition would have been completed. A major disturbance
of the immediate off—shore oceanic salinity is therefore a more
reasonable explanation for the observed data.
The chloride results point to the existence of a well—known
type of estuarine circulation pattern in which there is an extremely
large inf low of ocean water along the bottom of the system and
a correspondingly large outflow along the surface. There is
some mixing of oceanic water into the upper layer and a corresponding
influx of ocean water to maintain a state of dynamic equilibrium
of densities throughout the system. Downward mixing of surface
water, composed of river discharge and sea water, into the bottom
layers is quite restricted in this type of system.
The amount of ocean water flowing into the system in such an
estuarine circulation pattern is directly proportional to the
river discharge, but may be an order of magnitude greater because
of the loss of ocean water into the surface layers. The influx
of ocean water in such a regime is a major source of new water
within the system.
-------
41
Examination of the D.O. results within the framework of
the chloride results and an analysis of D.O. variance showed some
important characteristics of waste assimilation and oxygen utilization
within the harbor. With restricted circulation between surface
and bottom water, the oxygen used for waste stabilization in
the bottom layers must be supplied primarily from the inflowing
ocean water rather than from surface reaerat ion or from the river
discharge which stays in the surface layer.
The 5—day BOD data obtained during these surveys are presented
in Appendix Table B—7. They show the same general picture that
the results of routine monitoring show. As mentioned previously,
the values were low, well within the range normally attributed
to background conditions, i.e., an unpolluted system. Surface
and bottom samples showed similar results for all surveys and
stations except for Station 10 during survey AA. Long term BOD
analyses of samples obtained at several locations confirmed these
results.
Chemical oxygen demand determinations made on harbor samples
had values so low that the interference from chloride was of
the same magnitude as the COD. All measures of the amount of
oxygen—consuming load entering the harbor were far too low to
account for the degree of oxygen depletion observed.
The total coliform and fecal coliform data (Appendix B—
4 and B—5) show an increase in numbers of organisms within the
harbor during the summer and early fall months. While total
coliforni concentrations were lower at Station 1 (which is at the
harbor mouth) concentrations were generally proportionately
-------
42
higher in the Ashley River, the lower part of the Cooper River,
and near the Battery than they were in other locations. At Station
4, for example, there were 16,380 organisms per 100 ml at the
surface in Survey AB and 26,870 in Survey C. Total coliform
results included the fecal coliform group and encompassed coliform
organisms contributed by land runoff and warn—blooded animals
in general, as well as contributions from human wastes. The I ecal
coliform results were regarded as representing the direct contribution
from waste of human origin.
These results show that during warmer weather and with lower
river discharges, concentrations of both groups of coliform organisms
were far above the upper limits recommended for swimming and
other water contact sports in South Carolina (1000 total coliform
organisms per 100 ml).
No excessive algal growth was observed during the period of
study. Measured nutrient concentrations are shown in Appendix
Tables B—8 through B—il. Phosphate concentrations were slightly
higher in the Ashley River than elsewhere, probably due to industrial
waste discharges in the upper part of the Ashley River.
During the summer months, several fish kills occurred in
the Ashley River. Some of the mortality was traced to the discharge
of toxic waste material from an industry. Concurrently, levels
of free carbon dioxide were high enough (up to 84 mg/i) with
the existing D.0. values to cause mortality in some species of
fresh water fish. No lethal standards for the marine species
concerned have been established. Extracts of sludges from the
-------
43
vicinity of industrial waste discharges in the Ashley were toxic
to shrimp and menhaden in dilute concentrations. Results indicated
that the presence of sludge deposits in the Ashley River affected
aquatic life adversely either directly or indirectly. The neutral
ranges of pH data for surveys AA, AR, and E are summarized in
Appendix Table B—12. Turbidity arid total and volatile solids
data appear in Appendix Table B—13.
Sediment Studies
Additional measurements were made to determine the mechanism
leading to loss of oxygen in the harbor system. About 60 samples
of sediments from the harbor and its contiguous streams were
analyzed for volatile solids, organic carbon, and for organic
nitrogen. A summary of the results of these tests is shown in
Table 6 and the sampling stations are shown in Figures 8 and
9. Laboratory measurements of oxygen uptake by the sediments
were made on samples taken at the same locations, using both
constantly stirred and unstirred samples. These results are
summarized in Table 7.
These data show that there were extensive deposits of organic
material throughout the harbor arid that these deposits could
consume oxygen at a rapid rate. Sediments in the harbor system
contained as much as 13 per cent organic carbon, indicating that
such sediments were composed of about 30 to 40 per cent organic
matter. Sediments with this much organic material, or even less,
can be regarded as organic sludges and would be expected to have
a high rate of oxygen consumption. The oxygen uptake studies
(Table 7) showed that this was the case, and that oxygen uptake
-------
TABLE 6
SOURCE OF ORGANIC !IATERIALS IN BENTHIC DEPOSITS
No. of
Area Samples
% Organic
Carbon
% Organic Nitrogen
Mean
Ratio (C/N) Remarks
High
Low
Mean
High
Low
Mean
1) Upper CooDer P. 6 0.05 0.02 0.032 0.003 0.002 0.0027 11.95 Natural Organic
No Wastes Material.
Dis charged
2) Industrial Wastes 9 13.84 2.25 5.26 0.398 0.088 0.237 22.42 Untreated waste
near Paper Mill, products from semi—
Cooper River neutral sulfate mill,
3) Paper Mill and 6 5.87 2.34 3.79 0.418 0.177 0.267 14.38 Paw domestic wastes
Domestic Wastes, combined with substan—
Cooper River tially untreated paper
mill wastes.
4) Domestic Wastes 9 4.45 2.40 3.54 0.338 0.234 0.302 11.84 Untreated domestic
in Harbor wastes.
5) Industrial and 3 5.00 2.13 3.15 0.131 0.118 0.124 25.73 Untreated chemical and
Domestic Wastes, fertilizer industries
Ashley River and domestic wastes.
6) Outer Harbor 9 1.26 0.13 0.55 0.099 0.013 0.05’) 10.77 No tributary waste
discharges.
-------
DEPT. OF THE INTERIOR FWPCA
SEDIMENT SAMPLING STATIONS
CHARLESTON HARBOR
I
R D eAPdK LANDING
PORT TER
NAVY
WAPPOO CREEK
PLEASANT
JAMES ISLAND
0
.
FIGURE 8
-------
SEDIMENT SAMPLING STATIONS
UPPER COOPER RIVER
DEAN HALL
DEPT. OF THE INTERIOR
FWPCA
PI 1OPOLIS
ACL RR BRIDGE
S HWY 52 BRIDGE
N
STONEY LANDING
1
WAPPADOL A
COrE
8AS
8USHY
PARK
55
FIGURE 9
-------
TABLE 7
LABORATORY INVESTIGATION OF O) YGEN UTILIZATION BY BENTHIC DEPOSITS
Sediment Characteristics
Area
No. of
Samples
Test
Type
Oxygen Uti
at End of
lization
Period
Mean ¼
Mois—
ture
Mean
¼ Vol.
Solids
(dry wt)
Mean
Org.
¼
C.
Mean
Org.
¼
N
Mean
Org.C—
Otg.N
Ratio
Mean
Theoretical
02 Demand
mg.0 2 /gm
dry Vt. 1/
rig util./gm
Sed.dry
wt.
mean 1 day
mean 5
day
Upper Cooper R.,
mix
0.15
0.51
No Wastes
6
Discharged
non—mix
0.07
0.26
22.4
0.95
0.15
0.009
17.8
4,4
md. Wastes near
mix
4.42
8.84
Paper Miii,
9
Cooper River
non—mix
2.12
4.97
59.8
10.03
7.08
0.134
64.8
195.1
Paper Mill and
mix
4.34
6.63
Domestic Wastes,
6
Cooper River
non—mix
0.78
2.24
63,9
8.45
3.03
0.142
23.1
87.4
Domestic Wastes
mix
4.53
7.20
in Harbor
8
non—mix
1.00
2.55
73.0
11.07
3.06
0.203
15.6
91.1
md. & Domestic
mix
5.57
8.44
Wastes—Ashley R.
3
non—mix
0.97
2.54
73.3
11.52
416
0.172
26.2
119.0
Outer Harbor
mix
0.58
1.17
9
non—mix
0.28
0.74
34.5
2.90
0.71
0.046
15.4
21.0
1/ Computed from equation Theoretical Oxygen Demand = 2.67 (organic carbon) + 4.57 (organic nitrogen) which was
developed in “Effects of Polluting Disbharges on the Thames Estuary,” Water Pollution Research Technical Paper
No. 11; Dept. of Scientific and Industrial Research, Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, London, England, 1964.
‘I ,
-------
46
rates of 2 to 5 mg per day per gram of dry sediment were conunon.
There were large differences between results from the stirred
and unstirred samples; this is the result of the greater exposure
of nutrient surface area in the stirred samples. Oxygen uptakes
from stirred sediments as high as five times those from unstirred
sediments were observed.
The mechanism of oxygen consumption from the water, as suggested
by these results, is that sediments are agitated as bottom water
velocities increase following slack water (tidal velocities of
one to two knots are common in this system); oxygen is consumed
from the water in stabilizing these sediments in suspension.
As velocities decrease toward the next slack, the sediments settle
to the bottom. Pumped samples taken at depths near the bottom
showed that there was an aquatic zone in some cases several feet
thick which contained a thick suspension of solids.
The ratios of organic carbon to organic nitrogen in the
sediments can be used to differentiate between types of waste
materials comprising the organic fraction of the sediments. Industrial
wastes of non-human origin have very high ratios, generally running
between 15 and 40. Human wastes, such as primarily compose domestic
and municipal sewage, have ratios much lower than this, generally
between 10 and 15.
Sediment survey data showed that deposited wastes in the Cooper
River and above the Grace Memorial Bridge were primarily industrial,
as were those in the upper reaches of the Ashley River. Around the
Battery and in the lower reaches of the Ashley River there was a zone
-------
47
of sludge deposits from municipal sewage sources, while farther
out in the harbor there were beds of mixed composition.
The sludge deposits were the principal cause of the low D.O.
values observed during the intensive survey program. The combination
of high temperature and low river discharge in the summer and early
fall brought about the worst conditions because of a decrease of
available oxygen in the water combined with an acceleration of the
biochemical processes utilizing the oxygen. The theoretical oxygen
demand (TOD) shown in Table 7 demonstrates the theoretical potential
for oxygen consumption by the sediments.
Biological Studies
An examination of benthic biota and plankton populations was made
during survey E (September) by a team of aquatic biologists. The
results of their study are described below.
Samples of phytoplankton and bottom—associated animals were collected
from the Charleston Harbor estuary during September 20—24, 1965. These
were preserved and shipped to the Technical Advisory and Investigations
Activities laboratory at Cincinnati for analysis. Additional samples
of estuarine muds were obtained to determine the occurrence and distribution
of organophosphate pesticides and the effects of such muds on selected
aquatic organisms. Analyses to delineate the presence and distribution
of merphos (tributyl trithiophosphate) were conducted by personnel of
the Robert A. Taft Sanitary Engineering Center at Cincinnati, Ohio.
Bloassays to determine the effects of such muds on snails, shrimp, and
fish were implemented by Dr. C. Robert Lunz, Director, Bears
Bluff Laboratory, Division of Commercial Fisheries, South Carolina
-------
48
Wildlife Resources Department. Mud samples for a series of five
bloassays were collected on several dates between September 30 to
November 12, 1965. Figure 10 shows the biological sampling stations
in the harbor. Tables 8 and 9 list the results of the biological
analyses for bottom organisms and plankton.
Samples of bottom—associated life, collected during September 20—24,
1965, revealed adverse conditions for benthos in several reaches of
the Charleston Harbor estuary:
(1) In the lower reaches of the Ashley River, pollution was evident
from the vicinity of the Virginia—Carolina Chemical Company downstream
to the mouth of the river. Hid—channel benthic environments of these
reaches lacked bottom—associated organisms. Deposits in the channel
near the outfalls of the Virginia—Carolina Chemical Company were
comprised of dark—colored muds and oily substances that emitted odors
similar to those of petroleum. Bioassays conducted with such deposits
on certain snails, shrimps, and fish demonstrated that certain
constituents of these muds were toxic to the organisms tested. Bottom
deposits in downstream reaches to the mouth of the river consisted of
black muds and organic matter, and produced foul odors like those of
domestic sewage.
(2) The lower reaches of the Cooper River contained significant
discharges of waste from upstream sources. Pollution as evident in
the Cooper River in reaches immediately upstream and downstream
from the vicinity of the West Virginia Pulp and Paper Company.
Sludge deposits were abundant, and bottom associated organisms were
-------
DEPT. OF THE INTERIOR
A.C.L. RaiJroad ,
Hwy. I7 ••
•..
• Ft. Sumter
01 2 34
Biological Sampling Stations
Charleston Harbor
9/20-24/65
FWPCA
Ocean
- Sampling Station
W. Va. Pulp &
outfall
Buoy
V.C.
Berestord Creek
-19
• ç$ ,Shutes
.
nautical miles
FIGURE 10
-------
TABLE a
BENTWEC BTOTA
Station
Number of Or&anisr.s
Polychaste
Total
Total
Station Location Uumber
Worms Snails
Oysters Clams
Barnacles Mussels Crabs Anemones Shrirm
OCEAN AREA
Seaward Pron Harbor Jetties 0 -1 5 (2)* 2 - - - - - 13 (3) 6 20
Harbor Jetties 0-2 29 (2) - - 18 - tel (3) 6 88
HARBOR AREA
ITearft.Sumter H-i 5(2) - - 2 - - 5(3) 6 12
South Fran Shutes Folly Island
Near Junction Buoy 32 H-2 l ie (2.) - - 12.
West of Shutes Folly Island H -li 90 (5) - - 5 90
North of Shutes Folly Island H-5 3 (2) - - 2 3
West of Drum Island H-6 13 (14) - - - 1 4 13
EastofDrum lsj.snd H-7 6(2) - - 2 6
AR NIE! RIV
liouth of Ashley River A-i - - - - - 0 0
Between U. S. Hwy. 17 & A.C.L.
Railroad Bridges A-2 - 0 0
Between State Hwy. 7 & %.C.L.
Railroad Bridges -3 - - - - - - 0 0
AtStatel !wy.7Bridge A-k 1.3(2) - 3 - - 2 - - U 18
One Ittie Upstreen Proc State Hwy.
7Bridge et-5 13(2) - 3 — 16 2 18 - 3(2) 8 5 14
COOPER RflER
flouth of Cooper River C-i 30 (5) - - - 314 7 8 0
Near Buoy 52 at U. S Navy Pier J C_2** 2 j 1 2
Downstream Fron W. Virginia Pulp
end Paper t im Outfall C-3 - 0 0
Near Goose Creek Confluence c- J o - 0 0
DayNarkerRio p c-S 3(2) - 2 3
WA RIVER
NouthofWandoRiyer W -1. 8(3) - - - 3( 1) Is P .
NearThsoyC- 19 U-2 8(3) - . - 2(1) Is 10
* Numbers in parentheses denote masher of ld.xids of polychaete worms end sbriwp. 4/
hasber san lunds of oflsniscs per squsre foot ssqilsd at
** This station was recently dredmed for silt removal. Charleston Harbor and lover reaches of tributary rivers,
September 2O—2k 1965.
-------
50
TABLE 9
PHYTOPLANKTON CONCENTRATIONS
Phytoplankton (number per milliliter and ppm wet weight)
Charleston Harbor and Tributary Rivers
September 20—24, 1965
Number
per
milliliter
Amount as ppm
Station Number Surface
Bottom
Surface
Bottom
Ocean Area
0—1 1,200 100 3.3 2.2
Harbor Area
11—1 225 650 0.6 2.0
11—2 1,200 2.8
H—6 1,050 1,750 5.8 6.7
11—7 3,050 2,750 12.9 8.3
Ashley River
A—i 1,050 330 3.0 1.0
A—2 2,700 3,800 8.2 12.0
A—4 2,200 5,150 6.8 18.0
Cooper River
c—i 1,000 4,450 4.2 4.1
C—3 2,950 7.7
C—5 200 0.5
Wando River
W—1 1,800 3,400 5.9 11.1
W—2 1,250 550 5.1 1.9
* Nnt sampled.
-------
51
not found in these reaches. Marine worms were found in benthic
environments both upstream and downstream from these grossly
polluted reaches. Partial recovery was indicated near the mouth
of the Cooper River where oysters and seven other kinds of animals
were found; however, certain clean—water associated forms such
as shrimps and crabs were absent.
(3) The Wando River was not discernibly polluted. Benthic
reaches of this river were composed of hard clays mixed with
scraps of shells and vegetation, and provided conditions suitable
for three kinds of clean—water associated shrimp.
(4) Moderately polluted areas were apparent in the main
harbor from the mouths of the Ashley, Cooper, and Wando Rivers
seaward to near Fort Sumter. Benthic environments in these reaches
supported only marine worms. Bottom deposits were either black
mud or black muds mixed with bits of shells, clay, or sand. Deposits
consisting only of black mud were found in the reach south of
Shutes Folly Island near the mouth of the Cooper River, and in
the reach west of Shutes Folly Island; these muds emitted foyl
odors comparable to those associated with deposits in the lowermost
reaches of the Ashley River, i.e., petroleum.
Benthic environments near Fort Sumter and seaward were not
perceptibly polluted. Such environments were suitable for clean—
water associated shrimp, and clams or crabs. Phytoplankton tended
to be more abundant than 3.5 ppm in reaches inland from Shutes
Folly Island, and was less than 3.5 ppm seaward from Shutes Folly
-------
52
Island. This distribution of phytoplankton was apparently associated
with estuarine enrichment induced by waste discharges.
RELATIONSHIP OF PRESENT WATER QUALITY TO ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES
Water quality at any particular time depends not only upon
the amount and character of wastes entering a system but also
upon whatever environmental factors dominate the regime. Dissolved
oxygen and coliform organisms are the principal water quality
parameters of concern in Charleston Harbor.
The major environmental factors affecting any estuarine
D.O. system are:
(1) Waste load
(2) Temperature
(3) Solar radiation
(4) Tide
(5) River discharge
Minor factors such as rainfall and wind speed and direction may
also be important in specific instances.
In the present case neither rainfall nor wind vector (measured
at the Charleston Weather Station) were sufficiently dominaut
or consistent to cause more than slight variations in the data.
Table 10 presents the total cumulative knots of wind by direction
for each survey. Winds were mostly light and variable, though
there were occasional gusts of high winds in all surveys. Total
inches of rainfall for each survey are shown in Table 10.
-------
TABLE 10
CUMULATIVE KNOTS OF WIND BY DIRECTION .11
53
Direction Survey
in Degrees AA AB B C D E
0
5
15
——
29
38
35
‘15
10
9
——
——
22
——
20
——
——
——
26
5
——
30
——
2
——
16
——
12
40
——
——
——
12
——
9
50
15
——
——
60
18
8
60
9
12
6
——
——
3
70
——
10
4
——
——
——
80
——
8
——
17
——
——
90
——
33
——
4
——
19
100
——
32
——
100
——
6
110
——
22
——
——
5
8
120
3
22
——
——
2
18
130
——
——
——
——
7
12
140
——
10
5
——
9
10
150
7
21
——
——
4
26
160
13
16
——
12
——
——
170
——
8
12
——
4
——
180
6
9
42
15
6
——
190
——
——
12
10
13
——
200
5
21
25
1
8
4
210
——
12
——
——
9
——
220
——
11
14
——
——
——
230
——
6
——
——
24
——
240
15
——
7
10
23
——
250
——
——
25
——
——
——
260
——
15
——
6
——
——
270
66
——
——
——
——
——
280
26
——
——
2
——
——
290
16
——
——
——
——
——
300
16
——
——
4
——
——
310
7
——
——
——
4
——
320
7
——
——
——
——
——
330
——
——
——
——
——
——
340
11
——
——
1
——
3
350
9
19
7
——
——
——
Total inches
of rainfall .83 1.26 .38 .52 1.32 .72
1/
wind
For each intensive survey, velocity in knots and direction in
degrees were recorded on the same four hour frequency used for sampling
other parameters. The velocities for each direction for each survey
were added to give a cumulative knots of wind by survey.
-------
54
Waste Loads
Industries that discharged significant amounts of wastes
to the Charleston Harbor system operated primarily on continuous
process schedules on a year—round basis. Almost all wastes
were discharged directly from process sewers into the rivers
and harbor. Municipal sewage was also discharged untreated
from widely distributed pumping stations and gravity sewers.
Because there was no significant seasonal variation in waste
discharges, it was assumed that Charleston Harbor received a
constant waste discharge during the period of study. Such an
assumption permitted the evaluation of the relative effects of
environmental changes without requiring an accurate knowledge
of the total entering waste load. Table 11 lists the major waste
discharges.
Temperature
The annual variation in temperature in Charleston Harbor
is about 8 to 30°C. An increase in temperature reduces D.0.
saturation concentrations and increases the rates of biochemical
processes. The use of D.0. data in terms of percent saturation accounts
for much of the effect of temperature changes on the D.O. data.
In some estuaries, temperature differences between surface and
bottom can affect stratification to a marked degree. The data
of Appendix Table B—2 show that there was no significant difference
between surface and bottom temperatures for any of the surveys.
Stratification in Charleston Harbor was, therefore, not thermally
dominated.
-------
TABLE 11
MAJOR WASTE DISCHARGES
Estimated
Type
Load lbs.
of
Treatment
Discharge
5—day
Source Waste
Facilities
Location
BODLday Remarks
City of Municipal Sewage None 14 outfalls to lower 13,500 State law prohibits the
Charleston Ashley and Cooper discharge of untreated
Rivers and to Harbor sewage into Charleston
Harbor by any person or
political entity after
July 1, 1970.
Mt. Pleasant Municipal Sewage None Shem Creek & Harbor 500 See Above
No.Charleston Industrial. and None 14 outfalls to Ashley 7,000 See Above
Consolidated Municipal Sewage and Cooper Rivers in
Public Service upper harbor.
District
St. Andrews Municipal Sewage l)Septic Tanks or 15 outfalls to Ashley No data District services
Public Service oxidation ponds for and Stono Rivers available approximately 2000
District so subdivisions, (NDA) individual dwellings.
and 2)raw discharges
Hanahan Public Municipal Sewage Primary Goose Creek near 1,100 Not in Charleston
Service Cooper River County.
District
Charleston Air Municipal and some Primary Ashley River NDA
Force Base Industrial Sewage
Bird & Son, Industrial None Ashley River NDA Soap and dyes are major
Inc. (roofing components. Wastes have
and SLding) high pH.
U,
U,
-------
TABLE 11 — cont’d
Estimated
Type
Load lbs.
of
Treatment
Discharge
5—day
Source Waste
Facilities
Location
BOD/day Remarks
Koppers Co., Industrial Raw material Ashley River NDA Two waste streams.
Inc. (treated recovery unit immediately above Wastes contain metals
wood products) WOKE radio tower and phenols.
So.Caro lina Cooling Water None Ashley River NDA Cooling water from
Electric and steam generators.
Gas Company
Planters Industrial None Ashley River NDA Two waste streams with
Fertilizer Co. high metal concentra—
(su].f uric acid tioiis.
& fertilizer)
Va,—Caroljna Industrial None Ashley River ½ mile NDA Three waste streams
Chemi.cal Co. below State Hwy. 7 containing organic and
(organic and bridge inorganic phosphorus
inorganic products, sulfuric
phosphorus acid and metals.
chemicals)
W. Virginia Industrial Some in—plant Cooper River 69,200 In—plant modifications
Pulp and Paper treatment immediately below in Aug. 1965 resulted
Company Port Terminal in 47% reduction of BOD
load discharged to
Cooper River. ROD load
shown is average for the
period Aug.1965 to April
1966.
American Cooling Water None Ashley River NDA No significant wastes
Agricultural discharged.
Chemical Co.
-------
57
Solar Radiation
Solar energy affects water temperature and also furnishes the
energy necessary for the photosynthetic production of oxygen by algae.
The effect of solar energy on temperature was included in overall
temperature changes for which allowance has been made in the D.O.
regime. The response of D.O. in the harbor to photosynthetic oxygen
production was obtained from examination of the solar radiation and
D.O. records for the intensive surveys (Table 12 and Appendix Table B—i).
The response of D.O. to solar radiation was shown to be negligible in
this study by the reasoning developed below.
Table 12 presents values for the cumulative solar radiation on
each day of each survey. There were differences in solar radiation
from day to day, and the total energy inputs for each survey showed
significant variation. The actual quantitative effect of solar radiation
on D.O. was obtained from the results of cross—spectral analysis of the
solar radiation and D.O. records. A very strong diurnal response
(expressed as units of percent saturation per gram—calorie per square
centimeter per minute) of D.O. to solar radiation was regarded as caused
by photosynthetic oxygen production and oxygen utilization by the algal
population. There may have also been longer period responses of D.O. to
sunlight caused by a pronounced secular trend in solar radiation over
the period of record. A strong semidiurnal (tidal) component may have
also appeared as water of different algal populations was advected past
the sampling station. The net effect of all these responses on the D.O.
v iriance was examined by use of the overall response (total response of
the record) results of D.O. to solar radiation.
-------
58
TABLE 12
CUMULATIVE SOLAR RADIATION in 2rn.cal per cm 2 per day
Survey
AA
AB
B
C
T)
E
flay
1st
456
288
648
432
544
475
2nd
432
480
768
240
494
403
3rd
676
264
744
636
240
403
4th
336
•
2 4
698
616
452
276
5th
504
264
768
552
504
288
Total
2424
1560
3626
2494
2214
1845
-------
59
Stations 1 and 3 for surveys D and E were used for the radiation and
D.O. relation analysis since these stations represented areas of
extremes in nutrient concentrations and the surveys represented the
months of August and September, the hottest and driest periods.
The data of Table 12 was used with the overall response to calculate
the fraction of D.0. variance which was related to solar radiation
variance. Table 13 contains the results of this calculation.
The effect of solar radiation contributed up to 10 per cent of
the D.0. variance at these two stations. This proportion is
sufficiently small to be considered negligible in influencing
the D.0. regime of the harbor system. Solar radiation is not
considered therefore a major environmental factor affecting the
water quality of Charleston Harbor.
Tide and River Discharges
The degree of interaction between tide and river discharge
in Charleston Ilarbor was illustrated by the variable degree of
stratification observed during the intensive survey program.
The combination of river discharge and tide was the controlling
factor in the chloride distribution and the degree of stratification.
Figure 11 shows the changes in D.0. percent saturation from the
harbor mouth up the Cooper River for each of the six intensive
surveys. The abscissa is drawn on a scale proportional to river
miles between stations. At higher river discharges, D.0. levels
remained fairly high and uniform; as river discharges declined
the D.0. began to drop, particularly in the reach above tile Grace
-------
60
TABLE 13
SOLAR RADIATION AND D.0. VARIANCE
Total D.O. T).O. Variance Response
Variance to Solar Radiation
(per cent (per cent Per Cent of
saturation) 2 saturation) 2 Total Variance
Survey D
Station 1 Surface 85.3 8.0 9.4
Bottom 69.8 6.2 8.9
Station 3 Surface 52.3 3.9 7.5
Bottom 20.0 2.0 10.0
Survey E
Station 1 Surface i7 .O 13.0 7.3
Bottoi ’ 207.0 15.5 7.5
Station 3 Surface 104.0 7.6 7.3
Bottom 55.9 2.0 3.6
-------
Charleston Harbor
Mean Dissolved Oxygen 0 /oSaturation
AB
0
FWPCA
Surface
Bottom
-------
61
Memorial Bridge. The corresponding graphs for chloride changes
(Figure 12) shows similar trends, although the drops in chloride
concentrations were more pronounced than were those for D.O.
To develop a quantitative appreciation of the effect of tide
and river discharge on circulation and stratification in the
Charleston Harbor system, it was necessary to use some of the more
sophisticated techniques of systems analysis, namely the results
of cross—spectral analysis of the river discharge, chloride,
and D.0. records.
Relationships between River Discharge and Chlorides . Relationships
between river between river discharge and chloride concentrations
were derived from the results of six intensive surveys, salinity
profiles at all sampling stations at HWS and LWS (high water
slack and low water slack tides), and a series of four same—
slack runs made also at HWS and LWS. The last two bodies of
data are important because they show conditions at discharges
as low as 7700 cubic feet per second, which was far lower than
the minimum that occurred during the intensive sampling program.
The response spectra of chlorides to river discharge showed
the amounts of variance in the chloride record which could be
attributed to river discharge (Appendix Figure C—i shows typical
response spectra). The effects of river discharge on the tide
at the sampling stations was reflected in the semidiurnal tidal
component of the chloride response spectra. This type of analysis
was carried Out for all stations in all surveys.
-------
I CHARLESTON HARBOR
[ Mean Chloride Values
Surface
Bottom
-------
62
Although surveys AA and AB were subject to nearly the same
river discharge, there was during survey AA a spring tide with
a range of 5.2 feet, and during survey AB there was an equinoctial
neap tide of 3.5 feet range. Data from these surveys afforded
an opportunity to examine the effects of differences in the range
of tidal heights on the chloride distribution.
At Station 1 (harbor mouth) during survey AA, the major
response of chloride concentration to river discharge was semidiurnal
(tidal), with the bottom response about double the surface response.
During survey AB the major response was long—period in frequency
and the semidiurnal responses were quite small.
During survey AA there were significant semidiurrial responses
on the surface at stations 2, 4, 5, and 7. Other stations during
this survey exhibited a negligible effect of river discharge
on chlorides in the surface layer. During survey AB, only stations
1 and 2 exhibited any response of chlorides to river discharge
on the surface.
The response of the bottom stations during survey AA showed
a strong and fairly uniform semidiurnal response and a varying
amount of long—period response at all stations except 9 and 10
(in the Wando River and far up the Cooper River). In survey
AB the major bottom station response was long—period and responses
of tidal period were suppressed for all stations except 8 and
9.
This analysis demonstrated that a difference in tidal range
had a definite effect on chloride distribution and that this effect
-------
63
was small in the surface layers (except near the harbor mouth)
but quite pronounced in the bottom layer.
From the cross—spectral analysis, a coefficient for the
overall response of chlorides to river discharge was computed.
This coefficient indicates the magnitude of the effect of river
discharge on chloride concentration and is expressed in units
of gm/l/cfs. Appendix Table C—i contains the overall response
coefficients calculated for each station and survey together
with the mean values of these coefficients for each survey. These
coefficients include the effect of variations of all periods.
Comparison of the results from surveys AA and AB showed
that the means of surface and bottom responses of chloride concentrations
to river discharge were about equal for both surveys, 1.29 for
AA and 1.35 for AS. On the surface the overall response was
slightly higher for the spring tide condition, and on the bottom
the response was slightly lower for the spring tide condition.
Nean surface to bottom response ratios of 0.555 and 0.46 respectively
showed that the estuary was well stratified during both surveys.
The mean for the two surveys was 0.51. These values compared
well with the measured mean chloride ratios for these surveys
of 0.51 (Appendix Table 8—6).
At high river discharges with the estuary strongly stratified
the average overall response of chlorides in the estuary was
dependent upon the state of the tide. During spring tide conditions
there was an increase in response in the surface layer which
was related to more intense mixing at the interface created by
-------
64
higher shearing velocities. At the same time there would have
been a stronger intrusion of ocean water along the bottom which
meant less variation and consequently less response in the bottom
layer.
The response spectra for the other four surveys showed generally
strong semidiurnal responses with the responses at each station
becoming relatively stronger on the surface as the river discharge
decreased. Concurrently the overall response of chlorides to
river discharge decreased for surveys 13, C, and D, and then increased
during survey E (made during spring tide conditions). These
results reflected a decrease in the strength of the stratification
with reduced river discharge and a consequent increased mixing
between surface and bottom. The mean ratios of chlorides as
shown in Appendix Table 1 3—6 show the same type of progression.
Surveys D and E show mean overall response ratios of 0.834
and 0.872, respectively, indicating that the surface and bottom
layers reacted nearly the same to river discharge for both surveys.
The striking differences in overall resj onse between surveys
D and E required some examination. Appendix Table C—2 shows the
mean tide height range for each survey together with an analysis
of the mean overall responses. The tidal height range difference
between surveys 1) and E was about the same as that between surveys
AS and AB. The surface and bottom responses for surveys A lt and
AD were quite different from those during surveys D and E. However,
the difference in surface response between both pairs of surveys
was practically identical, showing that the surface layer was being
-------
65
affected similarly by some constant difference between the surveys
comprising each pair. The only similarity in environmental factors
as the change in tidal range.
One additional result is important; between surveys D and
E the change in bottom response was the same as the change in
surface response, 0.062 on the surface and 0.067 on the bottom.
This comparison shows that the surface and bottom overall responses
for surveys D and E were very nearly the same and that the changes
of overall response with change in tide height were the same
in both surface and bottom records. The net result of this comparison
of chloride responses was to demonstrate that the surface and
bottom layers in surveys D and E behaved so nearly alike that
for all practical purposes the chloride distribution is acting
as if estuary stratification was vertically consistent.
The cross—spectral analysis further demonstrated that below
discharges of about 16,000 cfs, the Charleston Harbor system,
considered as a single unit behaved in its chloride distribution
as if it were vertically unstratified. For analyzing the chloride—
river discharge relationship at flowrates below the range observed
during the intensive survey program, the chloride response factors
used were the average of those found during surveys D and E (0.834
and 0.872, respectively) because conditions close to vertical
mixing were observed during these surveys. This would correspond
to a tide range of 5.0 feet, which is near the mean tide range
of 5.2 feet for the primary reference tide in Charleston harbor.
-------
66
The preceding discussion has been based on considerations
involving all of the stations sampled. Since each station was
carefully selected to represent a significant region of the entire
system, these results should be a valid representation of the
workings of the entire system.
Individual parts of the harbor did, however, respond differently
to changes in river discharge. Appendix Table C — ) presents the
results of slack tide runs made during high water slack and slow
water slack conditions. The values presented are ratios of surface
to bottom chloride obtained at the indicated river miles (mile
zero at the end of the jetties for the Cooper River). There
was an abrupt drop in the ratio between miles 11 and 12 of the
Cooper River. Station 7 is at mile 11.6 and station 5 is at
mile 10.0. The corresponding results of the special salinity
profile studies (Appendix Table C—4) show a similar picture.
Figures 11 and 12 show corresponding results in the mean values
of chloride and 0.0. percent saturation. From the consistency
of these results there appeared to be a basic difference in the
water quality and hydraulic characteristics of the harbor below
the Grace Memorial Bridge and in that part from the bridge on
up the Cooper and Wando Rivers. Because of this difference in
characteristics it was possible to consider stations 1, 2, 3,
4, and S as the “lower harbor” and stations 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10
or 13 as the “upper harbor”.
The ratios of surface to bottom values of: (1) mean chlorides
(intensive surveys), (2) overall chloride response to river discharge,
-------
67
and (3) corresponding values from the slack tide and salinity
profile studies are presented in Appendix Table C—5, and are
pictured in Figures 13 and 14. The relationship of chloride
ratios to river discharge is ambiguous because the intensive
survey data, in both overall response and mean chloride ratios,
suggest a curvilinear relationship intersecting a ratio of 1.0
at about 10,000 cfs. Both the slack tide and salinity profile
results, however, gave observed ratios of less than 1.0 for much
lower flows than occurred during the intensive surveys. Response
coefficients could not be computed from these results.
Slack tide values obtained during survey E compared with
the slack tide and salinity profile results showed that there
was no bias in the mean to be expected from a reasonably large
sampling (33 samples) of HWS and LWS conditions.
The results in Appendix Table C—5 also show that the differences
between overall responses for surveys D and E were all close
to the value of 0.067 calculated for the entire harbor. In the
upper harbor the difference in response in the surface layer
was slightly less than that in the bottom layer, suggesting that
progress toward vertical homogeneity was not as far advanced
as in the lower harbor.
The difference in overall response between surveys AA and
AB (high river discharge) for the upper harbor and the lower
harbor are strikingly diverse. In the lower harbor there was
a large increase in response with an increase in tide range in
both the surface and bottom layers. This indicated that mixing
-------
DrEPT.OF THE INTERIOR
FWPCA
[ RESPONSE OF CHLORIDE CONCENTRATION TO RIVER DISCHARGEI
LOWER HARBOR
STATIONS, I,2,3,4 5
3p
RIVER DISCHARGE IN THOUSAND C.FS.
Data From Intensive Studies
o Mean Ratios Of Surface To Bottom Responses Of C1 To
River Discharge
E Mean Ratios Of Surface To Bottom C Measurements
Data From Special Studies
• Ratios From Slack Tide Runs.
X Ratios From Salinity Profiles
0
Overall Response Ratios
0.8
S
x
Mean Chloride
0.6
£
0
0.4
0.2
a
5 10 20 25
I I I I
FIGURE 13
-------
DEPT.OF THE INTERIOR
FWPCA
I RESPONSE OF CHLORIDE CONCENTRATION TO RIVER DISCHARGE
UPPER HARBOR
STATIONS,6P7,8I9,
(10)13
-0.8
:: Mean Chloride Ratios”
-0.2
0
15 20
25 30
I
I I
I I
RIVER DISCHARGE IN THOUSAND C.ES.
Data from intensive studies.
Mean ratios of surface to bottom responses of CI to river
discharge.
A Mean ratio of surface to bottom C1 measurements.
Data from special studies.
• Ratios from slack tide runs.
X Ratios from salinity profiles.
Overall Response Ratios
x
S
.
U)
U i
0
0
-J
I
0
I -.
I-
0
CI
I-.
LI I
ci
a:
U)
U..
0
C
1-
a:
A
C
FIGURE (4
-------
68
between the bottom layer and the surface layer increased with
an increase in tidal range for this portion of the harbor. In
t.he upper harbor this situation was reversed, i.e., a snail decrease
in response occurred in the surface layers and a much larger
decrease occurred near the bottom.
These results show that at high discharges the characteristics
of mixing and stratification were quite strongly dominated by
channel geometry. At lower discharges this is not as strong
a factor as demonstrated by the similarity of responses in the
upper and lower harbors for surveys D and E.
The straight lines sketched in Figures 13 and 14 illustrate
extreme conditions for achieving vertical homogeneity in the
harbor systems in the mean of samples taken and in the overall
responses. The relationships between the two lines show that
each system responds as if it were unstratified at a much higher
discharge than that at which vertical homogeneity occurs. In
the lower harbor the surface and bottom responses should become
the same by the time a discharge of about 9,000 cfs is reached,
while in the upper harbor this should occur at about 6,000 cfs.
Relationships between River Discharge and Dissolved Oxygen .
The change in the character of the stratification as shown in
the analysis of chloride data was closely related to the changes
in D.O. with river discharge. At higher flows, with the entire
harbor strongly stratified, there was restricted mixing between
surface and bottom layers, so that the major source of D.0. available
for stabilizing wastes was from the constant input of new ocean
water along the bottom of the harbor.
-------
69
Natural reaeration of the surface layers was not, in this
situation, a significant contribution toward waste stabilization,
since the major oxygen demand in the harbor came from the sludge
deposits on the bottom of the harbor.
As stratification begins to break down, however, reaerated
water from the surface will be mixed downward where it can help
stabilize the sludge deposits. In a vertically homogeneous system,
surface reaeration may be the major source of oxygen available
for stabilizing wastes.
One additional consideration related to river discharge
is the effect of the fresh water inflow on flushing in the harbor.
A series of dye tests was conducted in the Charleston Harbor
hydraulic model to investigate this phenomenon. Although verification
tests using chloride data developed from the Project’s intensive
surveys showed some discrepancies between model and prototype,
particularly for low river discharges, the model data were by
far the best means of evaluating the flushing characteristics.
Analyses of dye concentration data resulting from both instantaneous
and continuous releases in the tributary rivers were made to
determine the mean time of travel or the mean residence time
of the dye particles in the segments between sampling stations.
The method of analysis used involved the determination of the
time—frequency distribution of the dye particles at each sampling
station and the computation of the mean time of travel from the
release point. The relation of flushing time to river discharge
is shown in Table 14.
-------
TARLE 14
ANALYSIS OF MODEL DYE STUDIES
MEAN TRAVEL AND RESIDENCE TIMES IN TIDAL CYCLES FOR GIVEN COUPER RIVER FLOW
River
Mjle*
Mean
Travel
Mean
Residence
Mean
Travel
Mean
Residence
Mean
Travel
Mean
Residence Remarks
Station
Time
Time
Time
Time
Time
Time
Cooper River 30,500 cfs 15,500 cfs _ 3500 cfs
Upper Harbor
Mile 37 0 0 0 0 0 0 Release Point.
1.1 3.0 14.8
Mile 22 1.1 3.0 14.8 Above Goose Crk.
2.9 58 8.3
Mile 14 4.0 8.8 23.1 St.8, Fig. 2
1.4 4.1 7.9
Lower Harbor
Mile 10 5.4 12.9 31.0 St. 5, Fig. 2
6.8 6.1 2.0
Mile 4 12.2 19.0 33.0 Two miles seaward
at Ft. Sumter.
Ashley River 30 500 cfs 15,500 cf s 3500 cfs
Upper Harbor
Mile 7 o 0 0 0 0 0 Release Point.
2.2 .4 4.9
Mile 6 2.2 2.4 4.9 Hwy. 17 Bridge
0.2 2.6 6.5 over Ashley.
Lower Harbor
Mile 4 2.4 5.0 11.4 Btw.So.tlp of Chas.
3.6 4.6 3.2 and Jas. Isl.
Mile 2 6.0 9.6 14.6 Two miles inland
from Ft. Sumter.
* Mile zero for the Cooper River at the end of the jetties (river miles follow the channel). Mile zero for Ashley
River at junction of Ashley and Cooper Rivers.
-------
71
At high flows the residence time between stations was short
in the upper sections of both the Cooper and Ashley Rivers but
:Long in the lower harbor.
In the problem areas of both rivers, i.e., between mile
22 and 14 on the Cooper River and between mile 6 and 4 on the
Ashley River, the proposed flow reduction to 3000 cfs would more
:han double the mean residence time in the system. This doubling
iou1d create the potential for increasing the amount of both
nutrient and oxygen—consuming materials in these reaches and
would intensify the existing problems.
The relationship of D.0. to river discharge was somewhat
nore complex to analyze than was the chloride relationship, because
D.O. disappeared from the bottom layers through biochemical utilization
and was added to the surface layers through atmospheric reaeration.
The response spectra of D.0. percent saturation to river
discharge exhibited behavior similar in long—period and seniidlurnal
(tida]) response to the chloride response spectra. The D.0.
responses, however, showed a diurnal response also. This result
appeared consistently in all the surveys and at most of the stations.
The cross—spectra of chlorides and D.0. percent saturation
showed that there was a strong diurnal and 36—hour response of
1).O. percent saturation to chlorides. These results suggest
t:hat there was a time lag between a change in chloride concentration
and the approach of D.0. to equilibrium with that concentration)-’
Lilt should be possible, with longer records and more detailed spectral
analysis, to estimate reaeration coefficients for such systems.
-------
72
Because of this time lag and because of the nonlinear interaction
of the D.O. and river discharge, analysis of the D.O. regime
was based primarily on the overall response results and the survey
mean values.
Table 15 contains the overall responses of D.O. percent
saturation to river discharge. The mean values of D.O. percent
saturation are presented In Appendix Table B—i.
The variation in chloride structure with range of tide height
has been discussed. Because of the sensitivity of D.O. concentration
to chloride concentration, a corresponding effect of tide range
on D.O. may be expected. Because of the non—conservative nature
of D.O., it was not possible to analyze the effect of tide range
on D.O. as directly and simply as was done for chlorides. Several
simplifying assumptions were made:
(1) The overall response of D.O. to chloride was used with
the previously estimated effects of tide range on chloride and
the response of D.O. to river discharge to obtain a response
factor of D.O. to river discharge per foot of tide range for
each of the surveys. With this response factor the mean D.O.
percent saturation for each survey was corrected to the mean
tide range of 4.61 feet. These calculations are summarized in
Table 16. The mean D.O. values corrected to mean tide range
were assumed valid and were used for all further calculations
of the effect of river discharge on D.O.
(2) As the turbulent structure of the system changed with
changes in the current, a corresponding change in surface reaeration
-------
73
TABLE 15
OVERALL RESPONSE OF DISSOLVED OXYGEN PERCENT SATURATION
TO RIVER DISCHARGE
AA
AB
B
Survey
C
D
E
.003763
.002017
.001731 .001515
.002338 .000724
.003339 .002707 .000762
.001874 .001625 .000917
.002823 .002028 .000758
.001233 .003698 .000811
.002589 .002161 .001082
.002293 .002357 .001048
.002292 .001924 .001347
.003237 .001746 .000968
.001326 .001543 .000926
.001538 .002316 .000966
.001937 .001671 .000942
.002036 .003614 .000765
.000942 .001813 .000988
.002713 .002863 .000538
.001208 .002101 .000778
.000876 .002313 .000799
.001344 .000470 .001099
.000816 .000447 .001225
.001084 .000362 .000942
.000507 .000231 .000744
.001065 .000366 .000807
.000626 .000223 .000515
.000983 .000240 .001012
.000416 .000500 .001057
.000842 .000431 .000986
.001065 .000259 .000955
.000651 .000426 .000645
.000572 .000169 .000875
.001052 .000580 .001035
.000361 .000331 .000918
.000760 .000384 .000642
.000602 .000311 .000796
.000846 .000591 .000835
.000888 .000182 .000781
.000784 .000588 .000290 .000475
.000799 .000841 .000278 .000633
lOS
1 OB
.015973 .007471
.007228 .004641
Mean
(1—9)
S
.002246
.001964
.001011
.000959
.000427
.000889
B
.001979
.002541
.000837
.000650
.000294
.000874
Mean
(1—9)
S
B
.002112
.002252
.000360
.000881
Ratio
S
(1—9)
B
1.134620
.773020
1.452830
1.016900
Ratio PA . 038036 E = . 015889 — 2.44446
(1—9) AB .040549 .938002 D .006503
StaI:ion
:L S
:LB
2 S
2B
3S
3B
4 S
4B
SB
6S
6B
7S
7B
BS
8B
9S
1 : s
1 3B
-------
74
TABLE 16
ANALYSIS OF D.O. RESPONSE TO RIVER DISCHARGE
AND CORRECTION FOR
TIDE RANGE
Survey
Stations -
Response 2/
Ft. Tide
Range—cfs
Response
Ft. Tide
Range
Tide Range
Correction
Corrected
D.O. %Sat.
Mean
Flow
cfs
Lower
0.000488
0.135
—0.082
80.3
27,600
harb or
AZ
1 thru 5
0.000547
0.152
+0.081
96.0
27,700
surface
B
and
0.000243
0.064
+0.033
77.9
26,300
bottom
C
0.000213
0.041..
+0.021
73.9
19,300
D
0.000080
0.013
+0.002
67.5
16,200
E
0.000162
0.022
—0.025
65.0
13,500
AA
Upper
harbor
0.000685
0.189
—0.115
70.8
27,600
AR
6 thru 13
surface
0.000744
0.206
+0.109
96.0
27,700
B
and
0.000203
0.053
+0.028
72.3
26,300
bottom
C
0.000174
0.034
+0.017
66.7
19,300
D
0.000080
0.013
+0.002
60.7
16,200
E
0.000133
0.018
—0.021
56.8
13,500
1/ Method of computing tide range correction: Take mean overall response
of dissolved oxygen to river discharge for stations in area of concern
and divide by mean tide range. This gives answer in % Sat./Ft. Tide
Range—CFS. Multiply this value by mean river discharge giving % Sat./
Ft. Tide Range. Then multiply this value by the difference between the
mean tide range and the observed tide range. This yields a % Sat.
correction value for tide range.
2/ mg/i of D.O./cfs of river discharge.
-------
75
characteristics would be expected. At all but very high river
flows in this system, however, the current regime was dominated
by tidal flow rather than river flow. Therefore, in relation
1:o river discharge, surface reaeration, was constant or, at most,
varied only slowly with changes in river discharge.
(3) Since the Cooper River was a clean stream, and was thoroughly
aerated in its journey from Lake Iloultrie to the harbor, high
D.O. values in the incoming river water were assumed to exist
upstream from the first significant pollution. (Values between
79 and 90 percent of saturation were obtained from field studies).
under isothermal conditions, then, the amount of D.O. advected
into the system by the river was directly proportional to the
river discharge, and the change in D.O. at harbor stations was
dependent on the difference between DO, in the river water and
in the harbor itself.
(4) The strength and volume of the oceanic inflow along the
bottom of the estuary was directly dependent upon the volume of
the river discharge as well as on the geometry of the system;
consequently, the amount of oxygen advected into the system in the
oceanic inflow also depended directly on the volume of river flow.
Since the volume of ocean inf low changed as a multiple of the river
flow, the oxygen advected through this mechanism was assumed to
obey some type of power law.
A mechanistic rationale of this type is necessary to postulate
a form of empirical equation which can be used with the limited data
available to correlate observations over the observed flow ranges
and also to provide a reasonable basis for extrapolation to the low
flow ranges.
-------
76
The equation postulated for the Charleston Harbor system is
in KO + C, (1)
where
P = Percent saturation of dissolved oxygen,
0 = River discharge in cfs
K, n, C are empirical constants
This equation contains a constant term plus a term which
is a power function of the river discharge, and is consistent
with the mechanism described. In the limits, the D.0. will approach
100 percent saturation at very high river discharges, and decreases
t:o a low value at no river discharge.
The constants in this equation were evaluated from means
of the intensive survey data.
The D.O. data from surveys B, C, D, and E were averaged
for the upper harbor and for the lower harbor; and the averages
were used to determine the constants in equation (1) separately
f or the upper harbor and lower harbor. As shown in Appendix
Table B—2, the mean temperature for these four surveys ranged
from 25 to 29° C, while the temperatures for surveys AA and AB
were near 10 and 14° C, respectively. Because of this large
discontinuity in temperature, which was only partially accounted
for by the use of D.O. percent saturation, and because the mean
river discharges during surveys AA and AB were only 5 percent
greater than that during survey B, surveys APt and AB were not
used in this analysis of D.O. percent saturation.
-------
77
The equations developed from the analysis of the response of
D.O. to river discharge in a vertically stratified estuary with the
constants evaluated for Charleston Harbor from the intensive survey
data are these:
upper harbor
in = (4.08 x l0 5 )Q 098 + 0.363 (2)
lower harbor
in — 9 1.93
l—0.O1P — (1.87 x 10 )Q + 0.875 (3)
These equations produce the lines sketched in Figure 15,
which show the existing relationship of D.O. percent saturation to
river discharge in the Charleston Harbor system. Each plotted point
shown represents the mean for either upper or lower harbor for a
particular intensive survey.
Figure 15 is a plot of equations 2 and 3 and illustrates a
probable relationship between dissolved oxygen in the harbor and
river discharge. This figure may be interpreted as follows:
(1) In both the upper and lower harbor, some D.O. would
he present even with no river flow. The five stations in the
upper harbor would have an average of about 30 percent of saturation,
while in the lower harbor the average would be nearly 60 percent
of saturation with no river inflow. These results represent
the effect of reaeration in adding dissolved oxygen to the harbor.
It is assumed that 0.0. addition caused by tidal action alone
would be small with no river inflow; I.e., little mixing with
tidal surges would occur.
-------
D I PT. OF THE INTERIOR
RESPONSE OF DISSOLVED OXYGEN PERCENT SATURATION
TO RIVER DISCHARGE
C
0
a;
15
l)
0
0
C
a,
0
a;
it
Lines f,tf.d from mathem icaI model (Not from observed data)
• Mean of DO data from lower harbor.
• Mean of DO data from upper harbor.
FWPCA
Lower Harbor
.
r Harbor
River Discharge In 1000 CFS
FIGURE 15
-------
78
(2) At low river flows, D.O. in the upper harbor would respond
much more rapidly to changes in river discharge than would D.O.
in the lower harbor. This reflects the advection of DO. from
the unpolluted part of the Cooper River into the polluted areas.
The change in slope of the curves suggests the development of
a vertically stratified system with increasing river discharge.
Above about 20,000 cfs both the upper and lower harbors have
the same type and degree of stratification. Between 10,000 and
20,000 cfs the stratification begins to alter; in the lower harbor
there is a gradual change to a vertically mixed system, while
in the upper harbor the D.0. regime passes through a zone in
which advective D.0. input from the river discharge alone Continues
to be significant even though advection of D.O. from the ocean
decreases rapidly with the breakup of stratification in the lower
harbor. At river discharges less than 5000 cfs, the processes
of surface reaeration would provide the major source of oxygen
to the entire harbor.
(3) Reasoning from the assumption that D. 0. in the harbor
Is primarily replenished by oceanic Inf low under stratified conditions,
the following observations are made. The difference in the exponents
on Q (the river discharge) in the upper and lower harbors (0.985 and
1.93, respectively) gives a qualitative idea of how greatly the river
discharge might affect the inflow of water from the ocean along the
bottom of the estuary. Since Q Itself appears as an exponent in
equation (2), the oceanic inflow, particularly in the lower harbor,
would Increase at a high rate relative to increasing river discharge.
-------
79
PREDICTION OF FUTURE WATER QUALITY
Estimates of future water quality are based on the following
assumptions:
(1) Fresh water discharge from the Cooper River into Charleston
Harbor will be reduced to 3000 cfs.
(2) The quality of the inf lowing fresh water will be about
the same as it is now.
(3) Industrial waste loadings will be about the same as
at present in both quantity and character.
(4) All major sources of human waste will receive at least
primary treatment with chlorination of the effluent.
Within a period of five years all of the political entities
discharging municipal wastes to Charleston Harbor will be legally
required to provide primary treatment of their wastes. The bulk
of the sewage presently entering the lower part of the harbor
is from the City of Charleston. This untreated municipal waste
causes high coliform concentrations and the formation of sludge
beds around the Battery and Shute’s Folly Island, in Town Creek
and down to the Battery, and in the lower part of the Ashley
River.
There are five major areas of concern when considering the
effect of a reduction in river discharge on water quality in
Charleston Harbor:
(1) Coliform organism concentrations.
(2) The stabilization of sludge beds , and their future
extent.
-------
80
(3) The quantity and distribution of toxic materials in
t:he system.
(4) The potential for nutrient buildup near the sewage outfalls,
particularly in harbor coves and beaches.
(5) The quantity and distribution of D.O. in the system.
COLIFORN CONCENTRAT IONS
Primary treatment and chlorination of about 80 percent
of the total amount of the domestic sewage entering Charleston
Harbor will result in total coliform counts of less than 1000
organisms per 100 ml over most of the harbor. This is the upper
limit for swimming and other water contact sports set by the
South Carolina State Health Department. This estimate is based
on observed coliform counts made during the intensive survey
program and on an increased dieoff rate for coliform organisms
in the presence of the more saline conditions existing over much
of the harbor at reduced river discharges.
Small amounts of untreated sewage entering the harbor from
storm drains will create some localized areas of moderatei! coliform
concentrations. These areas will be close to shore and may occur
from the Battery up the eastern side of the Charleston peninsula
as far as Goose Creek. There may also be some localized areas
along the Ashley TUver. A thorough implementation of connections
to the sewage interceptor system should keep such areas at a
ninimum.
l/”Moderate” is defined here as total coliform counts averaging more
than 1000 organisms per 100 ml with counts frequently above
30,000 organisms per 100 ml.
-------
81
SLUDGE REDS
Over a period of several years the existing sludge beds
formed by the present untreated municipal waste discharges will
disappear as the organic material is stabilized, i.e., if adequate
waste treatment is provided, and no new settleable organic material
is added to the harbor.
After the construction of municipa] sewage treatment facilities,
industrial wastes will be the primary sources of sludge beds
in Charleston harbor. Future sludge deposits will be closer
to their parent outfalls. There will 1e very few and small sludge
bankc in the lower harbor. The Ashley River will contain sludge
beds from the Virginia—Carolina Chemical Plant to the railroad
bridge several miles downstream. These beds will cause some
oxygen depletion in reaches of the Ashley River, but the large
vo]umes of estuary water in comparison with the quantities of
present industrial waste discharge suggest that this depletion
will not he a severe drain on the oxygen resources of the Ashley
system. By contrast, the Cooper River below the West Virginia
Pulp and Paper Company will have extremely active sludge beds
and there will he some sludge present down as far as the Grace
Memorial Bridge.
TOXIC MATERIALS
Toxic materials contained in the industrial waste effluents
discharged into the Ashley River may be extremely damaging to
the biota under reduced flow conditions. There has been a steady
decline in fish populations in the Ashley River near the industrial
-------
82
waste outfalls over the past several years. Reduced flow conditions
would result in an increase in the amount of time necessary to remove
waste materials from the area. An increase in toxicity of the aquatic
environment will develop unless proper industrial pollution control
practices are initiated.
NUTRIENT BUILDUP
Nutrient buildup, if it occurs, will he caused prinarily by
municipal waste discharges in the Ashley and Wando Rivers, both of
which have little fresh water flow. These rivers will be unstratified
with reduced flows in the Cooper River; and unless outfalls are well
located, i.e., in harbor areas characterized by thorough mixing and
flush—out qualities, tidal action will cause a gradual dispersion of
effluents throughout both the Ashley and Wando systems. The potential
does exist for a nutrient buildup which could result in nuisance
growths of algae, but the extent to which such nuisance growths could
develop cannot be quantitatively evaluated with present information.
DISSOLVED OXYGEN
The analysis of the dissolved oxygen distribution that would
exist in the harbor after rediversion has been developed from a quasi—
empirical mathematical model of the D.O. system as related to river
discharge. It has been shown that under existing waste load conditions
the degree of saturation of harbor water with dissolved oxygen was
extremely sensitive to the Cooper River inflow, especially in areas
represented by the upper harbor sampliru stations. The lower harbor
stations reflected a similar sensitivity to river discharge but to a
lesser degree.
-------
83
The results of the analyses of the D.O. mathematical model combined
with those of the hydraulic model studies and the known changes that
will occur in municipal waste disposal practices suggest the following
future D.O. patterns in the harbor. In the lower harbor, the
rediversion of the Cooper River will cause an initial reduction in
mean dissolved oxygen levels. These levels will gradually be increased
after municipalities contiguous to the harbor install sewage treatment
plants and existing sludge deposits are oxidized or stabilized.
In the upper harbor, the situation will be considerably different.
The reduction of inflow will result in a rather large decrease in
the mean dissolved oxygen percent saturation. The organic materials
discharged Into this area will remain there for longer periods of time
which will result in a much greater oxygen consumption. The major
waste discharges in the upper harbor area are of industrial origin,
and industries are not presently subject to the same regulatory laws
as the municipalities. It can be expected then, that large volumes
of untreated industrial wastes i1l result In the depletion of the
oxygen resources in some areas of the upper harbor to the point where
periods of septicity will occur, especially during the late summer.
Even if industrial waste treatment were to become mandatory, an
immediate improvement would not be noticeable. The existing sludge
c:eposits contain enough organic materials to cause rather severe
D.O. depletion. A satisfactory future water quality condition can be
cibtained by removal of the existing sludge beds and elimination of all
untreated waste discharges.
-------
84
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Ashley River Pollution Study, Summary Report, Southeast
Water Laboratory: Athens, Georgia; August, 1965.
2. Bain, R. C., Jr. and McCarty, J. C., Nutrient—Productivity
Studies in San Francisco Bay. Central Pacific Basins Water
Pollution Con ro1 Project Report No. 65 — 1 U.S.P.H.S. San
Francisco, California, July, 1965.
3. Boyce, W. E. and DiPrima, R. C., Elementary Differential
Equatics and Boundary Value Problems. Wiley, New York, N.Y.,
1965.
4. Chapin, W. C. and Steiner, L. E., Second Year College Chemistry.
Wiley, New York, N.Y., 1943.
5. Chemical Analytical Procedures (A Report), Raritan Bay Project.
6. Churchman, C. W., Ackoff, R. L., and Arnoff, E. L., Introduction
to Operations Research. Wiley, New York, N.Y., 1966.
7. Collected Reprints, Volume 6. Collected Reprints, 1958 — 1961,
Volume V. Chesapeake Bay Institute, Johns Hopkins University,
Baltimore, Md. February, 1963 (V); 1965 (VI).
8. Contamination Dispersion in Estuaries, Delaware River Hydraulic
Model Investigation. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Waterways
Exp. Station, Misc. Paper No. 2 — 332, Report I, Vicksburg,
Mississippi, April, 1959.
9. Course Manual, Chemical Analyses for Water Quality, Water Supply
and Pollution Control Training. Robt. A. Taft San. Engineering
Center, Cincinnati, Ohio; December, 1961.
10. Effects of Polluting Discharges on the Thames Estuary; Water
Pollution Research Technical Paper No. 11; Department of
Scientific and Industrial Research; Her Majesty’s Stationery
Office, London, England, 1964.
11.. Eldridge, E. F., industrial Waste Treatment Practice. McGraw—
Hill, New York, N.Y., 1942.
12. Fair, C. M.; Moore, E. W., and Thomas, H. A., Jr.; The Natural
Purification of River Muds and Pollutional Sediments. Journal
of San. Eng. Div., Amer. Soc. of Civ. Epg. ; Vol. 13, No. 2: 270—
307. March, 1961; Vol. 13, No. 4: 756—779, July, 1941; Vol. 13,
No. 6: 1209—1228, Nov., 1941.
-------
85
11. Fair, C. M. and Ceyer, J. C., Water Supply and Waste—Water
Disposal. Wiley, New York, N.Y., 1959.
14. Feigi, F., Spot Tests in Inorganic Analysis. Elsevier,
Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 1958.
15. Gunnerson, C. C., Optimizing Sampling Intervals in Tidal
Estuaries. Journal of the San. Eng. Div., Amer. Soc. of
Civil Eng. , Vol. 92, No. SA—2, Apr11, 1966.
16. Harleman, D. R. F., Jordaan, J. N., Jr., and Lin, J. D., The
Diffusion of Two Fluids of Different Density in a Homogeneous
Turbulent Field. M.I. ’F. Hydrodynamics Lab, Tech. Report No. 31
February, 1959.
17. Report on Sewage Treatment for Charleston, South Carolina,
Hazen & Sawyer, and Louis Y. Dawson, Inc., May, 1965.
16. Hoelscher, R. P.; Arnold, J. N.; Pierce, S. H., Graphic Aids
in Engineering Computation. McGraw—Hill, New York, N.Y., 1952.
19. An Investigation of the Pollution into Charleston Harbor. Dept.
of Civ. Eng., The Citadel, Charleston, S.C., December, 1965.
20. Jenkins, D., A Study of Methods Suitable for the Analysis and
Preservation of Nitrogen Forms in an Estuarine Environment.
Sanitary Engineering Research Laboratory, SERL Report No. 65-13.
Univ. of Calif., August, 1965.
21. Klein, L., River Pollution: I. Chemical Analysis, River Pollution:
II. Causes and Effects. Butterworth’s, London, England.
1., 1959, II., 1962.
22. Kleinberg, J.; Argersinger, W. J., Jr.; Griswold, E., Inorganic
Chemistry. Heath, Boston, Mass.; 1960.
23. Koithoff, I. M. and Sandell, E. B., Testbook of Quantitative
Inorganic Analysis. MacMillan, New York, N.Y., 1964.
24. Krone, R. B., Methods for Tracing Estuarial Sediment Transport
Processes; Hydraulic Eng. Lab and San. Eng. Research Lab.,
Univ. of Calif., Berkeley, Calif., Oct. 1960.
25. Lee, T. . and Sillen, L. C., Chemical Equilibrium in Analytical
Chemistry. Interscience; New York, N.Y., 1959.
-------
86
26. Manual on Industrial Water and Industrial Waste Water. ASTM
Special Tech. No. 148—f, ASTM, Philadelphia, Pa., 1963.
27. Murray, R. W. and Reilley, C. N., Electroanalytical Principles,
Interscience; New York, N.Y., 1963.
28. Neiheisel, J., Source of Materials and Cause of Sediment
Deposition in Charleston Harbor. U.S. Army Engineer Division
Laboratory, South Atlantic,; July, 1965.
29. O’Connor, D. J., Estuarine Distribution of Nonconservative
Substances. Journal of San. Eng. Div., Amer. Soc. of Civil
Eng. ; Vol. 91, No. SA—l:23—42. February, 1965.
31). O’Connell, R. L. and Walter, C. M., A Study of Dispersion in
Hilo Bay, Hawaii. TA & I, Div. Water Supply and Pollution
Control, Public Health Service, September, 1963.
3L. O’Connell, R. L. and Walter, C. M., Hydraulic Model Tests of
Estuarial Waste Dispersion. Journal of the San. Eng. Div.,
Amer. Soc. of Civil Eng. , SA—l, January, 1963.
32. Oxygen Relationships in Streams (A Seminar). Tech. Report
W58—2. Robt. A. Taft San. Eng. Center, Public Health Service,
Cincinnati, Ohio, 1958.
33. Pearson, E. A. (Ed.), Waste Disposal in the Marine Environment.
Pergamon Press, New York, N.Y., 1960.
34. Perils, S., Theory of Matrices. Addison—Wesley, Reading, Mass.,
1958.
35. Pickard, C. L., Descriptive Physical Oceanography. Pergamon
Press, New York, N.Y., 1963.
36. The Port of Charleston, S.C., Part 2, Part Series No. 13.,
The Bd. of Eng. for Rivers and Harbors, Corps of Engineers, U.S.
Army. U.S. Cov’t. Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 1961.
37. Report upon the Extent, Effects and Limitations of Waste
Disposal into San Diego Bay. San Diego Regional Water Pollution
Control Board, 1952.
38. Simmons, H. B., Some Effects of Upland Discharge on Estuarine
Hydraulics. Proceedings, Amer. Soc. of Civ. Eng. , Vol. 81,
Paper No. 792, Sept., 1955.
-------
87
39. Smart, W. M., Combination of Observations. Cambridge Univ.,
Press, 1958.
40. Snell, F. D. and Snell, C. T., Colorimetric Methods of Analysis.
Van Nostrand, Princeton, N.J.; 1953.
41. Southgate, B. A. and Preddy, W. S., Discharge of Sewage and
Industrial Wastes to Estuaries. Journal of the Royal Sanitary
Institute , Reprint No. 216, April, 1952.
42. Southgate, B. A., Treatment and Disposal of Industrial Waste
Waters. His Majesty’s Stationery Office, London, England, 1948.
43. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater
Including Bottom Sediments and Sludges. Amer. Pub. Health
Assoc., Inc., New York, N.Y., Sept., 1960.
44. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water, Sewage and
Industrial Wastes. Amer. Pub. Health Assoc., Inc., New York,
N.Y., 1955.
45. StrIckland, J. D. H. and Parsons, T. R., A Manual of Sea
Water Analysis. Fisheries Research Board of Canada, Bull. No. 125,
Ottawa, 1965.
46. Stock, J. T., Amperometric Titrations. Interscience, New York,
N.Y.; 1965.
47. Tarzwell, C. N. (Ed.), Biological Problems in Water Pollution
(3rd Seminar, 1962). Robt. A. Taft Sanitary Eng. Center, Public
Health Service, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1965.
48. Tracer Studies and Pollutional Analyses of Estuaries. State
Water Pollution Control Board, Sacramento, Calif., Publication
No. 23, 1961.
69. Training Course Manual, Recent Developments in Water Microbiology.
Robt. A. Taft San. Eng. Center, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1964.
50. Trewartha, C. T., An Introduction to Climate. McGraw—Hill,
New York, N.Y., 1954.
51. Tully, J. P., Oceanography and Prediction of Pulp Mill Pollution
in Alberni Inlet. Fisheries Research Board of Canada, Bulletin
No. LXXXIII; Ottawa, 1949.
-------
52. Von Arx, W. S., Introduction to Physical Oceanography.
Addison Wesley, Reading, Mass., 1962.
53. Wastler, T. A., Application of Spectral Analysis to Stream
and Estuary Field Surveys, I. Individual Power Spectra.
Robt. A. Taft San. Eng. Center, Public Health Service,
Cincinnati, Ohio, Nov., 1963.
54. Wiegel, R. L., Oceanographical Engineering. Prentice—Hall,
Englewood Cliffs, N. J., 1964.
55. Young, J. C. and Clark, J. W., Second Order Equation for
BOD, Journal of San. Eng. Div. Amer. Soc. of Civil Eng ;
Vol. 91, No. SA—l; 43—57, February, 1965.
88
-------
APPENDIX A
SUMMARY OF ROUTINE SURVEY DATA
A—I
-------
TABLE A—i
SUMMARY OF ROUTINE MONITORING
Ouality
Parameters
.
Total
Coliform
Fecal
Coliform
Dissolved
Oxygen—mg/i
Max.
Mj
Max.
Mm.
Max.
Mm.
Station Value
Date
Value Date
Value
Date
Value Date
Value Date
Value Date
is 46,000 10/27/64 520 9/24/64 4,300 10/13/64 40 1/28/65 9.60 1/25/65 4.40 8/23/65
lB 7,200 9/30/64 90 2/01/65 1,800 9/29164 5 3/01/65 9.50 2/11/65 4.32 8/05/65
2S 46,000 10/27/64 500 12/07/64 5,200 5/27/65 40 12/07/64 9.60 1/25/65 4.39 8/23/65
2B 20,200 6/10/65 400 9/09/65 5,000 9/30/64 20 1/28/65 9.20 2/08/65 3.95 8/10/65
35 52,000 7/29/65 660 6/03/65 6 ,2OO 8/12/65 50 1/28/65 9.70 2/04/65 3.73 8/05/65
3B 30,000 9/16/65 1,000 9/09/65 3,000 5/27/65 QO 12/03/64 9.52 2/04/65 3.79 8/23/65
4S 86,000 10/13/64 600 2/01/65 7,140 7/29/65 80 2/01/65 9.65 1/28/65 3.23 8/26/65
4B 15,000 4/29/65 440 3/01/65 4,300 10/28/64 11 8/30/65 9.23 2/08/65 3.60 8/26/65
55 30,000 10/28/64 300 10/06/64 2,200 9/02/65 30 2/01/65 9.50 2/08/65 4.35 8/23/65
5B 12,800 10/29/64 360 9/09/65 1,120 7/29/65 20 2/01/65 9.10 2/08/65 4.05 8/23/65
6S 68,000 10/14/64 440 9/02/65 14,400 9/02/65 70 9/24/64 9.95 2/08/65 2.67 8/26/65
6B 76,000 10/29/64 940 12/08/64 5,000 9/29/64 70 12/08/64 9.40 2/08/65 3.15 8/26/65
75 91,000 10/14/64 1,000 9/16/65 6,400 6/03/65 140 2/15/65 9.55 2/08/65 3.98 6/10/65
7B 12,200 10/01/64 160 8/05/65 1,400 8/03/65 46 1/28/65 9.85 1/25/65 3.85 8/10/65
8S 40,500 4/29/65 1,200 7/08/65 7,100 4/29/65 180 2/08/65 10.75 2/01/65 3.10 8/26/65
8B 35,000 10/14/64 1,400 3/01/65 7,150 4/29/65 60 3/01/65 9.20 2/08/65 2.99 8/26/65
9S 18,000 9/02/65 40 8/09/65 2,900 9/16/65 11 8/23/65 9.75 2/08/65 3.56 8/26/65
9B 14,800 2/18/65 370 8/09/65 1,500 4/29/65 28 8/23/65 9.60 2/08/65 3.23 /26/65
lOS 47,000* 9/02/65 220 10/01/64 5,700* 9/02/65 5fl* 7/15/65 10.46 1/28/65 2.82* 8/26/65
lOB 32,500* 7/15/65 620 1/28/65 4,630* 9/02/65 50 1/28/65 10.30 2/04/65 2.61 8/26/65
* Station 13, which replaced Station 10 during 5—65
-------
TABLE A—i — cont’d
Ouality Parameters
5
Day
B.O.D.
thioride
in
mg/1
pH
4ax.
Mj
‘ 4 ax.
Mm.
Max
Mm.
Station Value
Date
Value Date
Value
Date
Value Date
Value Date
Value Date
iS 7.0 9/24/64 0.5 9102/65 17,300 10/08/64 4,200 10/27/64 8.6 2/8/65 6.7 10/21/64
lB 6.6 9/24/64 0.2 9/02/65 18,900 12108/64 9,950 8/09/65 8.6 2/8/65 7.1 9/30/64
2S 7.2 9/24/64 0.6 1/28/65 16,150 4/29/65 2,700 10/27/64 8.5 2/4/65 7.0 2/18/65
2B 2.7 9/24/64 0.4 2115/65 18,000 12/08/64 7,400 2/08/65 8.3 2/4/65 7.1 2/15/65
3S 7.1 9/30/64 0.6 12/03/64 12,300 8/26/65 2,300 8/05165 8.5 2/4/65 6.5 10/29/64
3B 3.4 9/24/64 0.2 12/02/64 17,950 4/29/65 3,700 2/18/6 ’ 8.4 2/4/65 7.2 9/29/64
4S 3.5 10/28/64 0.2 12/03/64 13,700 9/23/64 3,100 10/28/64 8.3 2/4/65 7.0 8/26/65
4B 2.3 9/24/64 0.1 9/02/65 17,250 8/30/65 6,500 10/27/64 8.5 2/4/65 7.0 8/26/65
5S 3.0 10/28/64 0.5 12/03/64 18,000 7/15/65 3,400 10/28/64 8.4 2/4/65 7.3 2/26/65
5B 3.2 9/23/64 0.3 12/03/64 16,600 9/23/64 4,100 8/09/65 8.5 2/4/65 7.1 10/14/64
6S 4.2 9/28/64 0.6 6/10/65 15,500 5/20/65 2,050 8/05/65 8.6 2/4/65 7.0 8/26/65
6B 4.7 9/28/64 0.3 12/03/64 15,150 8/30/65 2,500 10/13/64 8.4 2/4/65 7.0 8/26/65
iS 3.1 10/28/64 0.3 12/03/64 12,200 9/09/65 3,200 10/27/64 8.3 2/4/65 7.1 8/26/65
7B 4.2 10/14/64 0.2 12/03/64 15,700 12/08/64 5,500 10/29/64 8.4 2/4/65 7.1 2/18/65
8S 2.8 10/28/64 0.4 9/02/65 8,200 9/23/64 800 10/27/64 8.5 2/4/65 6.9 8/26/65
8B 7.2 9/24/64 0.2 9/02/65 13,300 12/03/64 2,100 10/28/64 8.3 2/4/65 7.0 8/26/65
9S 5.2 10/01/64 0.5 12/03/64 8,600 8/26/65 2,200 2/18/65 8.4 2/4/65 7.0 10/21/64
9B 5.0 10/01/64 0.3 9/02/65 11,800 9/09/65 4,050 10/27/64 8.4 2/4/65 7.0 8/26/65
lOS 82.2 10/28/64 0.6* 9/02/65 6,000* 9/09/65 15 2/18/65 9.0 2/4/65 6.4 9/24/64
lOB >15.0 10/13/64 0.2 10/28/64 9,700* 6/15/65 19 10/27/64 8.9 2/4/65 6.4 9/24/64
* Station 13, which replaced Station 10 during 5—65
-------
TABLE A—i - cont’c!
Quality Parameters
Mmionia—N
Nitrate-N
Total Phosphate
Max.
fin.
Max.
Mm.
Max.
Mm.
Station
Value
Date Value
Date
Value
Date Value
Date
Value
Date Value
Date
iS
0.7
2/1/65 0.3
2/18/65
0.1
2/08/65 <0.1
2/11/65
0.23
9/28/64 <0.1
1/28/65
lB
0.9
2/8/65 0.4
2/18/65
0.1
2/08/65 <0.1
2/11/65
0.35
2/08/65 0.02
1/28/65
2S
0.6
2/1/65 0.3
2/11/65
0.1
2/08/65 <0.1
2/11/65
0.29
9/30/64 0.02
1/28/65
2B
0.8
2/8/65 0.3
2/18/65
0.1
2/04/65 <0.1
2/15/65
0.54
2/04/65 0.02
1/28/65
3S
0.8
2/8/65 0.2
2/04/65
0.2
2/18/65 <0.1
2/01165
1.11
2/08/65 0.04
1/28/65
3B
0.7
2/8/65 0.3
2/18/65
0.2
2/18/65 <0.1
2/01/65
1.03
2/08/65 0.05
1/28/65
4S
0.5
2/4/65 0.4
2/18/65
0.1
2/08/65 <0.1
2/15/65
0.17
2/08/65 0.02
1/28/65
4B
0.6
2/4/65 0 4
2115/65
0.1.
2/08/65 <0.1
2/15/65
0.34
2/08/65 0.03
1/28/65
5S
0.6
2/1/65 0.3
2/11/65
0.1
2/08/65 <0.1
2/11/65
0.17
9/29/65 0.02
12/07/64
SB
0.7
2/1/65 0.4
2/15/65
0.1
2/08/65 <0.1
2/11165
0.25
2/08/65 0.02
12/07/64
6S
0.5
2/4/65 0.2
2/01/65
0.2
2111/65 0.1
2/15165
0.19
2/08/65 0.05
1/28/65
6B
0.7
2/4/65 0.3
3/01/65
0.1
2/15/65 <0.1
2/11/65
0.23
2/08/65 0.04
12/07/64
7S
0.7
2/8/65 0.2
2/11/65
0.1
2/08/65 <0.1
2/15/65
0.21
9/28/64 0.02
12/07/64
lB
0.9
2/8/65 0.3
2/11/65
0.1
2/08/65 <0.1
2/11/65
0.24
2/08/65 0.01
1/28/65
8S
0.6
2/4/65 0.3
2/11/65
0.2
2/11/65 0.1
2/04/65
0.19
1/25/65 0.03
1/28/65
8B
0.7
2/1/65 0.2
2/11/65
0.2
2/04/65 <0.1
2/15/65
0.28
2/04/65 0.02
2/15/65
9S
06
2/8/65 0.4
2/15/65
0.2
2/18/65 <0.1
2/11/65
0.18
2/08/65 0.04
2/04/65
9B
0.6
2/1/65 0.4
2/18/65
0.2
2/08/65 0.1
2/15/65
0.57
2/18/65 0.04
2/04/65
lOS
0.6
2/18/65 0.4
2/11/65
0.1
2/15/65 <9.1
2/11/65
0.35
9/29/64 0.02
12/02/64
lOB
0.9
3/1/65 0.4
2/15/65
0.1
2/11/65 <0.1
3/01/65
0.23
2/15/65 0.02
1/28/65
-------
TABLE A—I — cont’d
Quality Parameter
Water Temperature °C
Max.
Mm.
Station
Value
Date Value
Date
iS
29.5
5/20/65 9.4
2/4/65
lB
29.0
8123/65 9.2
2/1/65
2S
29.1
8/23/65 9.0
2/4/65
2B
29.1
8/23/65 9.4
1/25/65
3S
28.8
8/23/65 9.1
214/65
3B
30.0
8/23/65 8.5
2/1/65
4S
29.6
8/26/65 9.2
2/4/65
4B
29.2
8/26/65 9.6
2/1/65
5S
29.0
8/23/65 9.0
2/4/65
5B
29.0
8/23/65 9.2
2/1/65
6S
30.5
8/26/65 8.7
2/4/65
6B
29.5
8/26/65 8.9
2/1/65
7S
29.5
8/26/65 8.7
2/4/65
7B
29,0
8/12/65 8.9
2/1/65
8S
30.5
8/26/65 8.9
3/1/65
83
29.5
8/26/65 8.5
2/1/65
9S
30.0
8/26/65 8.9
2/4/65
9B
29.5
8/26/65 8.9
2/1/65
lOS
30.5
8/26/65 8.6
2/4/65
lOB
29.5
8/26/65 8.6
2/4/65
U,
-------
APPENDIX B
SUMMARY OF INTENSIVE SURVEY DATA
B—i
-------
B—2
TABLE B—i
MEAN VALUES OF PERCENT SATURATION OF DISSOLVED OXYGEN
Surveys
AA
AB
B
C
D
E
1965
3/3—7
3/23—27
6/21—25
7/19—23
8/16—20
9/20—24
Station 1
Surface 91.8 88 O 83.0 81.5 76.0 72.7
Bottom 88.0 92.5 81.6 76.7 771 75.3
Station 2
Surface 95.2 86.9 74.9 72.5 68.4 66.3
Bottom 89.4 88.2 71.0 68.6 66.8 66.0
Station 3
Surface 91.1 86.9 74 ,7 69.9 63.3 65.8
Bottom 87.3 87.0 68.2 67.5 59.2 61.7
Station 4
Surface 87.2 85.6 74.0 69.5 65.8 64.5
Bottom 85.2 87.8 68.3 66.9 64.5 65.4
Station 5
Surface 85.6 85.8 77.1 72.3 68.5 68.2
Bottom 84.3 90.1 72.8 72.6 63.7 68.7
Station 6
Surface 82.0 85.4 72.4 64.2 62.7 59.2
Bottom 83.0 87.2 66.1 62.9 58.4 60.7
Station 7
Surface 83.3 85.0 73.3 70.1 65.6 63.0
Bottom 84.0 86.4 68.9 68.7 61.5 65.6
Station 8
Surface 83.5 86.4 71.3 65.6 63.2 56.3
Bottom 83.0 85.5 64.0 60.2 56.2 56.9
Station 9
Surface 85.0 80.2 75.0 74.5 66.9 62.7
Bottom 84.1 84.1 65.0 64.8 58.5 58.9
Station 10
Surf ace 75.4 86.6 Discontinued
Bottom 79.7 83.8
Station 13
Surface 75.4 63.9 61.6 55.7
Bottom 65.0 52.7 49.9 49.9
-------
B- 3
TABLE B—2
MEAN VALUES OF WATER TEMPERATURES
(°C)
Surveys
AA
AB
B
C
D
E
1965
313—7
3/23—27
6/21—25
7/19—23
8/16—20
9/20—24
Station 1
Surface 10.4 14.2 25.4 27.5 282 27.3
Bottom 10.6 13 ,9 25.9 27.1 27.6 27.3
Station 2
Surface 10.3 14.1 25.5 27.7 28.5 27.3
Bottom 10.6 13.8 24.9 27.2 28.0 27.3
Station 3
Surface 10.6 14.6 25.6 28.0 28.7 27.6
Bottom 10.7 14.2 25.2 27.7 28.4 27.4
Station 4
Surface 10.2 13.8 25.5 27.8 28.5 27.3
Bottom 10.4 13.7 24.9 27.2 28.0 27.3
Station 5
Surface 10.3 14.1 26.0 27.6 28.5 26.1
Bottom 10.6 14.1 25.1 27.2 27.9 27.5
Station 6
Surface 9.9 13.9 25.7 27.9 28.6 27.2
BotI:om 10.2 13.7 25.1 27.4 28.]. 27.2
Stai:ion 7
Surface 10.1 14.0 25.6 27.7 28.5 27.4
Bottom 10.4 13.9 25.1 27.2 28.0 27.3
Stai:jon 8
Surface 9.8 13.9 25.8 27.1 28.8 27.3
Bottom 10.2 13.7 25.1 27.5 28.3 27.2
Station 9
Surface 10.3 14.6 25.7 28.1 28.9 27.4
Bottom 10.4 13.9 25.2 27.6 28.6 27.3
Stat:ion 10
Surface 10.2 14.1 Discontinued
Bott.om 9.7 13.8
Stat.ion 13
Surface 25.6 28.1 28.8 27.1
Bott.om 25.3 27.5 28.5 27.0
-------
B—4
TABLE B—3
MEAN VALUES OF CHLORIDES
( / 1 )
Surveys
AA
AB
B
C
D
E
1965
3/3—7
3/23—27
6/21—25
7/19—23
8/16—20
9/20—24
Stat:ion 1
Surface 6.67 7.39 9.09 11.20 11.70 13.14
Bottom 9.73 14.73 14.85 15.70 16.23 14.86
Station 2
SurFace 5.13 5.81 7.01 8.62 9.22 11.47
Botl:om 7.59 12.66 13.53 13.73 13.83 12.94
Station 3
Surface 4.68 4.83 7.72 8.50 9.08 10.39
Bott.om 6.77 9.82 9.70 11,73 11.89 11.44
Stat.ion 4
Surface 4.65 4.76 6.40 7.87 8.93 10.19
Bottom 7.94 12.53 13.28 13.20 12.79 12.61
Stat.ion 5
Surface 5.49 4.71 6.43 8.63 9.05 11.28
Bott.om 8.10 13.97 12.63 12.52 13.94 13.10
Station 6
Surface 2.05 1.93 4.18 5.06 6.58 8.20
Bottom 4.56 11.37 9.64 11.48 11.80 10.63
Station 7
Surface 3.67 3.80 5.24 7.35 8.39 9.34
Bottom 6.14 11.69 10.95 13.01 12.11 11.82
Station 8
Surface 1.18 1.62 2.51 3.67 4 ,93 6.00
Bottom 4.37 8.83 8.43 9.24 10.90 9.69
Station 9
Surface 3.17 3.73 5.58 7.15 7.76 8.45
Bottom 4.12 8.92 8.78 9.89 9.57 9.67
Station 10
Surface .17 Discontinued
Bottom .36 5.03
Stat.ion 13
Surface 1.48 2.95 3.38 4.12
Bottom 6.03 8.07 8.57 6.83
-------
B— 5
TABLE B—4
AN VALUES OF TOTAL COLIFORMS
( ORCANISt S/1O0 ml )
Surveys
AA
AB
B
C
D
E
1965
3/3—7
3/23—27
6/21—25
7/19—23
8/16—20
9/20—24
Station 1
Surface 2870 10590 11250 8710 6080 4010
Bottom 2010 2140 2150 1260 1320 1300
Station 2
Surface
Bo t torn
Station 3
Surface 8450 20850 24150 20860 24170 13810
Bottom 6350 11040 12320 11370 11810 7660
Station 4
Surface 5390 16380 26780 26870 24040 15700
Bottom 3790 3570 6530 2750 3420 6140
Station 5
Surface
Bottom
Station 6
Surface
Bottom
Station 7
Surface
B c’t torn
Station 8
Surface 5930 16110 20630 17840 13800 9590
Bottom 6900 7050 13120 8670 5510 7020
Station 9
Surface 2590 4730 7500 3440 4350 3720
Bottom 3440 2720 4090 4020 2340 2620
StatIon 10
Surface 4890 2560 Discontinued
Bottom 4850 3060
SI:ation 13
Surface 22070 21640 14650 13220
Bottom 8560 6910 8360 8450
-------
B—6
TABLE B—S
MEAN VALUES OF FECAL COLIFORMS
(ORGANISMS/100 ml)
Surveys
AA
AB
B
C
D
E
1965
3/3—7
3/23—27
6/21—25
7/19—23
8/16—20
9/20—24
Station 1
Surface 240 430 2180 920 1340 720
Bot.tom 180 80 400 220 260 280
Station 2
Surface
Bot:tom
Station 3
Surface 770 1210 5400 2900 4160 2100
Bottom 490 400 2670 1320 1690 1300
Station 4
Surface 450 740 6060 2960 2690 1640
Bottom 270 110 1570 390 880 860
Station 5
Surface
Bot torn
Station 6
Surface
Bot.tom
Station 7
Surface
Bat torn
Station 8
Surface 540 590 3690 2660 830 1340
Bottom 440 200 3280 870 480 1010
Station 9
Surface 200 190 1480 360 380 490
Bottom 220 100 850 420 190 350
Station 10
Surface 350 150 Discontinued
Bot.tom 510 100
Station 13
Surface 3420 2460 1100 2120
Bottom 2100 620 700 970
-------
B— 7
TABLE B—6
RFACE TO BOTTOM CHLORIDE RATIOS
Surveys
AA
AR
B
C
D
E
Slack
1965
3/3—7
3/23—27
6/21—25
7/19—23
8/16—20
9/20—24
Tide Runs
Station 1 .707 .498 .619 .728 .720 .886 .733
Station 2 .695 .498 .529 .648 .683 .933 .820
Station 3 .754 .524 .845 .748 .789 .918 .900
Station 4 .645 .405 • 45 .619 .741 .816 ——
Station 5 .710 .343 .520 .721 .653 .868 .927
Station 6 .558 .212 .552 .462 .621 .808
Station 7 .661 .333 .497 .580 .715 .794
Station 8 .462 .371 .424 .417 .473 .636
Station 9 .838 .509 .678 .748 .830 .885 .915
Station 10 .890 .764 Discontinued
Station 13 .371 .420 .473 .645 .612
Mean Ratio
of 1 thru 9 .670 .410 .572 .630 .692 .838 .784
Mean Ratios
Al]. Stations .692 .445 .552 .609 .670 .819
Average River
Discharge
cfs 27,600 27,700 26,300 19,300 16,200 13,500
-------
B—8
TABLE B—7
MEAN VALUES OF 5—DAY BOD
( mg / 1 )
Surveys
AA
AB
B
C
D
E
1965
3/3—7
3/23—27
6/21—25
7/19—23
8/16—20
9/20—24
Station 1
Surface 0.8 0.65 0.9 0.7 0.6 0.7
Bottom 0.8 0.5 1.0 0.5 0.5 0.7
Station 2
Surface 0.8 0.7
Bottom 0.95 0.6
Station 3
Surface 0.9 0.8 1.0 0.7 0.8 0.9
Bottom 1.1 0.7 1.4 0.7 0.6 1.0
Station 4
Surface 0.8 0.8 1.2 0.7 0.6 0.8
Bottom 1.0 0.6 1.0 0.5 0.4 0.8
Station 5
Surface 0.8 0.8
Bottom 0.9 0.5
St.ation 6
Surface 1.0 1.0
Bottom 1.0 0.7
Station 7
Surface 0.9 0.9
Bottom 1.0 0.6
Station 8
Surface 1.0 1.0 1.3 0.9 0.8 1.0
Bottom 1.3 0.8 10 0.6 0.6 0.9
Station 9
Surface 1.0 0.8 1.3 0.8 0.9 0.9
Bottom 1.1 0.7 1.1 0.7 0.6 0.9
Station 10
Surface 9.5 4.8 Discontinued
Bottom 6.4 2.1
Station 13
Surface 1.3 1.2 0.7 1.0
Bottom 0.9 1.1 0.5 0.8
-------
B—9
TABLE B—8
MEAN VALUES OF AMMONIA
(mg/i NH 3 —N)
Survey
AA AB B C D E
S t at ion
1 5 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.3
lB 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.2
25; 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.2
2B 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.2
35 . 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.3
311 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.3
4S 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.2
411 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.3
5S 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3
SB 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.4 0.3
6S 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.2
6B 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.3
7S 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3
7B 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.3
8S 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.2
8B 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.3
9S 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3
9B 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.3
los ! / 0.3 0.3
1011 0.3 0.2
13S 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.2
13B 0.2 0.2 0.4
1/ Station 10 was replaced by Station 13 after Survey AR.
-------
B—10
TABLE B—9
AN VALUES OF NITRATE
(mg/i N0 3 —N)
Survey
AA AB B C D E
Station
is 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1
lB 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1
2S 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1
2B 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1
3S 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1
3B 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1
4S 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1
48 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1
5S 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1
58 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1
6S 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1
68 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1
7S 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1
78 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1
8S 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1
8B 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1
9S 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1
9B 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1
lOS 0.3 0.2
108 0.4 0.1
13S 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1
13B 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1
-------
B—li
TABLE B—iO
MEAN VALUES OF ORGANIC NITROGEN
(mg/i)
Survey
A-A AB B C D E
Station
15 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.2
lB 0.4 0.2 0.3 0.2
2S 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3
2B 0.4 0.2 0.3 0.3
3S 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.4
3B 0.5 0.2 0.5 0.5
4S 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4
4B 0.4 0.2 0.3 0.3
5S 0.3 0.2 0.4 0.4
SB 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.4
6S 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.4
6B 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.3
7S 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3
7B 0.4 0.2 0.3 0.4
8S 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.3
8B 0.4 0.2 0.3 0.3
9S 0.4 0.2 0.4 0.4
9B 0.6 0.2 0.3 0.4
lOS 0.4 0.3
lOB 0.4 0.2
13S 0.3 0.3
13B 0.3 0.4
-------
B-12
TABLE B—il
IAN VALUES OF TOTAL PHOSPHATES
(mg/i P0 4 )
Survey
AA AB B C D E
Station
iS 0.14 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1
lB 0.19 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2
2S 0.14 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2
2B 0.30 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2
35 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.3
3B 0.4 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4
4S 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3
4B 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2
5S 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.2
5B 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2
6S 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2
6B 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2
7S 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2
7B 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2
8S 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2
8B 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2
9S 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2
9B 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.2
lOS 0.2 0.2
10T3 0.3 0.2
13a 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1
133 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.2
-------
TABLE B—12
SUMMARY OF pH DATA
Survey AA
Survey AB
Survey E
Station Max. -
Med. Mm.
Max. Med. Mm.
Max. Med. Mm.
iS 7.60 7.4 6.90 7.90 7.6 7.10 7.70 7.4 7.20
lB 7.70 7.6 7.10 7.90 7.8 7.30 7.80 7.5 7.20
2S 7.80 7.3 6.90 7.90 7,5 7.00 7.70 7.4 7.10
2B 7.70 7.4 7.00 8.00 7.8 7.20 7.80 7.4 7.00
3S 7.70 7.1 6.70 7.80 7.4 7.10 7.70 7.3 7.00
33 7.80 7.4 6.60 8.00 7.7 7.00 7.70 7.4 7.00
4S 7.70 7.2 6.50 7.90 7.5 7.10 7.70 7.4 7.10
413 7.70 7.4 6.90 8.00 7.8 7.40 7.80 75 7.00
SS 7.80 7.4 6.90 7.80 7.5 7.20 7.70 7.5 7.00
5B 7.80 7.5 6.80 8.00 7.8 7.40 7.80 7.5 7.20
6S 7.60 7.2 6.70 7.60 7.2 6.90 7.60 7.4 7.00
63 7.70 7.3 6.80 7.90 7.7 7.20 7.70 7.5 7.00
iS 7.60 7.3 6.70 7.80 7.4 7.10 7.70 7.4 7.10
7B 7.80 7.4 6.90 8.00 7.8 7.40 7.70 7.5 7.20
8S 7.60 7.2 6.80 7.70 7.2 7.00 7.80 7.3 7.00
8B 7.90 7.3 6.60 8.00 7.7 7.30 7.70 7.4 7.10
9S 7.60 7.3 6.90 7.80 7.4 7.10 7.70 7.4 7.10
9B 7.70 7.2 6.90 7.90 7.7 7.20 7.60 7.4 7.20
105 10.10 7.6 6.90 8.80 7.3 7.00
lOB 9.90 7.4 6.80 7.80 7.4 6.90
13S 7.50 7.2 7.00
138 7.60 7.3 7.00
-------
B—14
TABLE 8—13
SUMMARY OF TURBIDITY. TOTAL SOLIDS AND VOLATILE SOLIDS
(Turbidity in Jackson Units,
Total Solids In mg/i,
Volatile Solids in mg/i)
Mean V
alues
Survey
PA
.
.
Survey
AB
Station Turbidity Tot.Solids
Vol.Solids Turbidity
Tot.Solids Vol.Solids
is 36.61 36.39 10.88 15.66 17.46 6.76
lB 78.00 65.15 18.76 35.23 33,93 9.20
2S 30.72 29.57 9.13 18.85 20.42 6.57
2B 130.00 101.38 33.04 31.53 32.17 8.75
3S 44.76 43.07 10.59 19.29 21.07 6.41
38 123.50 103.24 21.07 155.92 30.96 8.33
4S 39.28 32.00 10.21 15.40 19.60 6.29
48 92.78 73.47 24.21 248.00 33.40 7.66
5S 54.26 44.01 9.40 16.13 20.10 5.49
5 8 79.73 57.59 16.93 257.00 29.00 8.60
6S 49.50 42.85 12.40 16.90 26.63 5.76
68 69.15 55.30 16.20 225.33 25.06 7.10
7S 44.68 37.13 11.52 16.60 25.50 6.33
78 87.00 67.46 18.28 211.00 24.96 6.48
8S 61.86 57.84 13.75 20.73 28.43 6.62
88 106.10 92.50 20.43 243.00 30.82 7.62
9S 54.94 42.32 13.41 16.90 21.06 5.72
9B 108.55 73.88 18.89 228.66 25.13 6.18
lOs 64.20 52.86 13.13 20.63 27.24 7.52
lOB 77.31 55.70 16.97 200.66 22.96 5.89
-------
APPENDIX C
DATA RELATING CHLORIDE CONCENTRATIONS
TO RIVER DISCHARGE AND TIDAL FACTORS
C— ].
-------
C—2
TABLE C—i
OVERALL RESPONSE OF CHLORIDE
CONCENTRATION TO RIVER DISCHARGE
(mg/1/cfs)
Survey
AA AB B C D E
Station
iS 1.292 1.844 .294 .362 .103 .167
18 1.935 1.623 .318 .298 .086 .152
2S 1.513 1.563 .115 .155 .088 .209
28 1.475 2.139 .413 .193 .135 .203
3:, .827 .500 .088 .157 .052 .084
3 13 1.638 1.852 .411 .328 .111 .133
4S 1.050 .655 .250 .156 .077 .156
43 2.186 1.684 .300 .204 .089 .188
5 1.637 .756 .212 .149 .090 .140
53 2.317 1.329 .238 .254 .077 .158
6s .737 .408 .358 .136 .060 .181
63 1.509 1.698 .550 .245 .101 .231
7S 1.008 .758 .124 .089 .094 .166
7B 1.984 1.762 .292 .214 .137 .171
8S .633 1.062 .165 .079 .139 .121
83 2.451 1.931 .444 .251 .088 .157
9S .466 .654 .192 .117 .028 .068
93 .798 2.073 .358 .172 .053 .088
ios .049 .354
lOB .370 2.434
13S .030 .117 .049 .096
138 .456 .384 .110 .206
Nean S 0.921 0.855 0.183 0.152 0.0812 0.1436
B 1.666 1.853 0.378 0.254 0.0974 0.1646
Nean S & B 1.294 1.354 0.281 0.203 0.0893 0.1541
Ratio S & B 0.553 0.461 0.484 0.598 0.834 0.872
-------
C—3
TABLE C—2
ANALYSIS OF CHLORIDE RESPONSES TO TIDE RANCF.S
Survey
Mean Tide
Range
(ft.)
Surface
Response
mg/1/cfs
Bottom
Response
mg/1/cfs
Differences
Tide
Range
(ft.)
Surface
Response
mg/1/cfs
Bottom
Response
mg/1/cfs
AA
5.22
0.921
1.666
1.14
.066
0.187
AB
4.08
0.855
1.853
B
4.09
0.183
0.378
C
4.11
0.152
0.254
D
4.42
0.0812
0.0974
1.34
.062
0.067
E
5.76
0.1436
0.1646
-------
C—4
TABLE C—3
SLACK TIDE SALINITY MEASUREMENTS
RATIOS OF SURFACE/ BOTTOI’l CHLORIDES
Cooper
1/13/66
1/14/66
1/14/66
1/17/66 Mean Regular
Intensive
River
Sampling
Survey E
Mile
HWS
LWS
HWS
LWS
Station
Min.—Max.
7 .696 .738 .759 .739 .733 1 .712—1.220
8 1.064 .790 .839 .782 .869
9 —— .784 .797 .754 .778
10 1.117 .741 .924 .927 5 .497—1.163
11 .815 .732 .859 .802
—— .536 .570 .650 .585 7 .504— .941
ii —— .525 .754 .565 .615 8 .339—1.134
14 .406 .632 .383 .482 .476
15 .391 .476 .445 .919 .558
16 .418 .547 .498 .461 .481
1/ .523 .454 .499 .820 .574
18 .512 .560 .516 .858 .612 13 .381—1.081
19 .393 .869 —— .759 .674 0
21 .932 —— —— —— .932
Ave rage
River
Discharge 8620
Ash 1
River
2 .697 .843 .930 .823 2
3 .689 —— .785 .946 .807
4 .956 .999 .720 .893 .892
5 .777 .973 .817 .986 .888
6 .837 1.003 .887 .953 .920
Wando
River
1 .782 1.036 .732 .986 .884 Mean of all
2 .848 .997 .844 .983 .918 except Cooper
.841 .990 .827 1.001 .915 9 River Mile 21
4 1.126 .975 .898 .990 .997
.760
-------
C—5
TABLE C—4
SALINITY PROFILE STUDY
Tide
River
Discharge
Chlorides
Ratio (S/B)
Surface
-
Bottom!’
tation Date
Condition
cfs
mg/i
Surface/Bottom
1 12/16/65 LWS* 10900 10500 16100 .652
12/02/65 HWS** 21800 13380 18330 .730
12/16/65 LWS 10900 12130 14060 .863
12/02/65 HWS 21800 14020 18130 .773
2 11/09/65 LWS 8100 10960 11660 .940
10/27/65 HWS 11500 11540 17630 .655
3 11/02/65 LWS 11900 10990 13350 .823
10/29/65 HWS 12900 9150 14890 .615
4 10/27/65 LWS 11500 7500 9440 .794
11/01/65 HWS 13400 12240 18370 .666
5 12/08/65 LWS 21400 10600 11460 .925
12/03/65 HWS 21100 10170 16300 .624
6 11/10/65 LWS 9400 7750 10260 .755
11/01/65 HWS 13400 7040 17250 .408
7 12/08/65 LWS 21400 8770 9740 .900
12/03/65 HWS 21100 7630 14340 .532
8 11/19/65 LWS 9200 6070 9580 .634
11/10/65 HWS 9400 12690 14310 .887
9 11/19/65 LWS 9200 9490 9450 1.004
11/09/65 HWS 8100 11630 14070 .827
13 12/08/65 LWS 21400 3110 4440 .700
11/10/65 HWS 9400 7870 11560 .681
No. S/B No. S/B
Values Flow Range Values Ratio Flow Range Values Ratio
8000 — 8500 (2) .884 12000 — 12500 (0)
8500 — 9000 (0) 12500 — 13000 (1)
9000 — 9500 (4) .739 13000 — 13500 (2) .537
9500 — 10000 (0)
10000 — 10500 (0) 21000 — 21500 (5) . 736
10500 — 11000 (2) .753 21500 — 22000 (2) .752
11000 — 11500 (0)
11500 — 12000 (3) .757
1/ Bottom values are the averages of n asurements made at 15, 20 and 25
foot depths.
* Low water slack.
** High water slack.
-------
TABLE C—5
ANALYSIS OF CI{LORIDE DATA FOR UPPER AND LOWER HARBOR AREAS
Differences in
Overall Response
Salinity
Slack Tide Runs
Source of Data
Intensive
Surveys
Between Surveys Shown
AS and AA D and E
Profile
Studies
7700
cfs
AA
Au ii
c
L I
Lower Harbor
Ratios of Means
.702
.454 .600
.693
.717
.884
(Surface/Bottom)
.751
.840
Overall Response*
(11,400
cfs)
Surface
1.264
1.064 .192
.196
.082
.151
.200 .069
Bottom
1.910
1.725 .336
.255
.100
.167
.185 .067
Ratio (9/B)
.662
.617 .571
.769
.820
.904
Upper Harbor
Ratios of Means
.682
.438 .504
.525
.622
•754
.774
.702
(Surface/Bottom)
(9,400
cfs)
Overal Response*
Surface
.579
.647 .174
.108
.074
.126
—.068 .052
Bottom
1.422
1.980 .420
.253
.098
.171
—.558 .073
Ratio (S/B)
.407
.327 .414
.427
.755
.737
Lower Harbor: Stations
1, 2,
3, 4, 5
Upper Harbor: Stations
6, 7,
8, 9, 13(10)
* Units in mg/i/cf S
-------
DEPT. OF THE INTERIOR FWPCA
STATION I
6.0 N
N
—
5.0 5.0
.
4.0 4.0
4
3.0 3.0
>
2.0 02.0
o 0
0.0
0.0
7236Z4I8I4.4l2 0.39 8 12362418 44120.39 8
PERIOD IN HOURS PERIOD IN HOURS
SURVEY AA-SURFACE SURVEY AB—SURFACE
6.0 6.0
N N
5.0
E E
4.0 4.0
z
4 4
4
>
2.0 2.0
3.0 3.0
0 0
1.0 1.0
U
0.0 0.0
723624I8I4.4I2 .39 8 1236241814.41210.398
PERIOD IN HOURS PERIOD IN HOURS
SURVEY AA-BOTTOM SURVEY AB-BOTTOM
RESPONSE SPECTRA
CHLORIDES TO RIVER DISCHARGE
FIGURE C-I
-------
DEPT. OF THE INTERIOR FWPCA
::\ :
Dqy Marker
0 erestord Crt e k
Buoy C- 19
I oo
UPPER .
HARBOR :.:.
Ocean
CHARLESTON HARBOR
Scmpling Locations
FIGURE 2
W.Va.Pulp8 Paper
outfall areo
Buoy 60
V.
A.C.L. Railroad
Hwy.
I
9 2
nautical miles
Ft. Sumter
------- |