United States Region 4 EPA 904/2-85 129
Environmental Protection 345 Courtland Street, NE February 1985
Agency Atlanta, GA 30365
&FPA PHOSPHOROUS LOADING
^ EFFECTS UPON PHYTOPLANKTON
STANDING CROP OF THE 18-MILE
CREEK EMBAYMENT OF
HARTWELL RESERVOIR,
SOUTH CAROLINA
-------
PHOSPHORUS LOADING EFFECTS UPON PHYTOPLANKTON STANDING CROP
OF THE 18-MILE CREEK EMBAYMENT OF HARTWELL RESERVOIR,
SOUTH CAROLINA
by
R. L. RASCHKE, B. COSGROVE, M. KOENIG
Environmental Protection Agency
Environmental Services Division
College Station Road
Athens, Georgia 30613
1984
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section No. Page No.
LIST OF TABLES ii
LIST OF FIGURES iv
LIST OF APPENDICES vi
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS . 1
SUMMARY 1
CONCLUSION 2
RECOMMENDATIONS 2
1. INTRODUCTION 3
2. STUDY AREA 3
3. STATION LOCATIONS 4
3.1 Embayment Stations 4
3.2 Creek Stations . ......... 4
3.3 WWTP Station 5
3.4 Other Point Source Discharge Stations 5
4. METHODS 6
4.1 Embayment Water Quality Monitoring 6
4.2 Creek Water Quality Monitoring 6
4.3 Dye Tracer Studies 7
4.4 Point Source Sampling 8
5. RESULTS 9
5.1 Embayment Monitoring 9
5.2 Creek Water Quality Monitoring 11
5.3 Point source Monitoring 15
5.4 Pendleton-Clemson WWTP Performance 15
6. PHOSPHORUS LOADING MODELS 17
6.1 Modified Vollenweider Model .... 17
6.2 Plug Plow Reactor (PPR) Model 20
7. TROPHIC STATE 23
REFERENCES 25
APPENDICES
i
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table Number
Stage Level in Feet Above Mean Sea Level (msl), 5.1
18-Mile Creek Embayment, Hartwell Reservoir, S.C.,
1983
Euphotic Zone Depth and Secchi Disc Transparency 5.2
Depth, 18-Mile Creek Embayment, Hartwell Reservoir,
S.C., 1983
Vertical Profile Maximum Chlorophyll a in ug/L, 5.3
18-Mile Creek Embayment, Hartwell Reservoir, S.C.,
1983
Horizontal Distribution of Chlorophyll a in ug/L 5.4
at the One-Foot Depth, 18-Mile Creek Embayment,
Hartwell Reservoir, S.C., August 8, 1983
Summary of Pendleton-Clemson WWTP and 18-Mile 5.5
Creek Water Quality Data, Hartwell Reservoir,
S.C. , 1983
Eighteen Mile Creek Point Source Discharges, 5.6
Hartwell Reservoir, S.C., August 9-11, 1983
Water Quality Monitoring Data for Pendleton- 5.7
Clemson WWTP and Creek Station EC-1, Hartwell
Reservoir, S.C., March 1983
Dye Tracer Results, 18-Mile Creek, Hartwell 5.8
Reservoir, S.C., 1983
Basic Parameters and Phosphorus Predictions for 6.1
18-Mile Creek Embayment, Hartwell Reservoir, S.C.
Weighted Average Phosphorus Loadings, 18-Mile 6.2
Creek, Hartwell Reservoir, S.C., 1983
Recorded Rainfall at Pendleton-Clemson WWTP, 6.3
18-Mile Creek, Hartwell Reservoir, S.C., 1983
Phosphorus Concentration Predictions Based on 6.4
Vollenweider Loading Model, 18-Mile Creek
Embayment, Hartwell Reservoir, S.C., 1983
ii
-------
LIST OF TABLES (continued)
Table
Average Phosphorus Concentrations, 18-Mile
Creek Embayment, Hartwell Reservoir, S.C.,
1983
Segment Area-Volume Data, 18-Mile Creek Embay-
ment, Hartwell Reservoir, S.C., 1983
Total Phosphorus Embayment Concentration
Predictions Based on Plug Flow Loading Model,
18-Mile Creek Embayment, Hartwell Reservoir,
S.C. , 1983
Bioavailable Phosphorus Embayment Concentration
Predictions Based on Plug Flow Loading Model,
18-Mile Creek Embayment, Hartwell Reservoir, S.C.,
1983
Regression Analysis of Bioavailable Phosphorus
and Chlorophyll a, 18-Mile Creek Embayment,
Hartwell Reservoir, S.C., 1983
Range of Average Chlorophyll a Concentrations
(ug/L) Under Different Loading Conditions,
18-Mile Creek Embayment, Hartwell Reservoir, S.C.
Maximum TSI Under Different Loading Conditions,
18-Mile Creek Embayment, Hartwell Reservoir, S.C.
iii
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure
Study Area, 18-Mile Creek Watershed,
Hartwell Reservoir, S.C., 1983
Creek and Embayment Stations, 18-Mile Creek
Watershed, Hartwell Reservoir, S.C., 1983
Modeling Sections, 18-Mile Creek Watershed,
Hartwell Reservoir, S.C., 1983
Area-Volume Curve, 18-Mile Creek Embayment,
Hartwell Reservoir, S.C., 1983
Stage-Discharge Curve, 18-Mile Creek at
Station EC-1, Hartwell Reservoir, S.C., 1983
Depth Profile Curves of Temperature, 18-Mile
Creek Embayment, Hartwell Reservoir, S.C., 1983
Longitudinal Depth Profile of Temperature,
18-Mile Creek Embayment, Hartwell Reservoir, S.C.,
March 1983
Longitudinal Depth Profile of Temperature,
18-Mile Creek Embayment, Hartwell Reservoir, S.C.,
July 1983
Rainfall, 18-Mile Creek Watershed, Hartwell
Reservoir, S.C., 1983
Depth Profile Curves of Dissolved Oxygen,
18-Mile Creek Embayment, Hartwell Reservoir, S.C.,
1983
Depth Profile Curves of Corrected Chlorophyll a,
18-Mile Creek Embayment, Hartwell Reservoir, S.C.,
1983
Flow Recordings, Station EC-1, 18-Mile Creek,
Hartwell Reservoir, S.C., March 1983
Total phosphorus Versus Flow Curve, Station EC-1,
18-Mile Creek, Hartwell Reservoir, S.C.
iv
-------
LIST OF FIGURES (continued)
Figure
Particulate Phosphorus Resuspension-Deposition
Curve, 18-Mile Creek, Hartwell Reservoir,
S.C., 1983
Dye Study Total Phosphorus Concentration
Profile, 18-Mile Creek, Hartwell Reservoir,
S.C., 1983
Low Flow Dye Study, Total Phosphorus and Total
Suspended Solids Concentration Profile, 18-Mile
Creek, Hartwell Reservoir, S.C., 1983
High Flow Dye Study, Total Phosphorus and Total
Suspended Solids Concentration Profile, 18-Mile
Creek, Hartwell Reservoir, S.C., 1983
Total Phosphorus Loading from Point Sources,
18-Mile Creek Watershed, Hartwell Reservoir,
S.C., August 1983
Percent Total Phosphorus Loading from Point
Source Contributors, 18-Mile Creek Watershed,
Hartwell Reservoir, S.C., 1983
Pendleton-Clemson WWTP Performance, Hartwell
Reservoir, S.C., 1983
Total Phosphorus Concentration versus Distance,
18-Mile Creek Embayment, Hartwell Reservoir, S.C
1983
Bioavailable Phosphorus Concentration versus
Distance, 18-Mile Creek Embayment, Hartwell
Reservoir, S.C., 1983
Relationship of Bioavailable Phosphorus and
Chlorophyll a, 18-Mile Creek Embayment, Hartwell
Reservoir, S.C., 1983
Maximum TSI Under Different Loading Conditions,
18-Mile Creek Embayment, Hartwell Reservoir, S.C
-------
APPENDICES
Correspondence A
Creek and Pendleton-Clemson WWTP Water B
Quality Monitoring Discussion of Each
Sampling Event
Area-Volume Data for 18-Mile Creek Embayment C
at 661 MSL, Hartwell Reservoir, S.C., 1983
Limiting Nutrient Status of 18-Mile Creek D
Embayment, Hartwell Reservoir, S.C., 1983
Average Corrected Chlorophyll
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Appreciation is extended to the following individuals for
ir support of the study:
o Don Schultz of the Ecological Support Branch (ESB)
for his dedication to the project including assist-
ance in the field and testing for bioavailable
phosphorus;
o Paul Frey and David Smith of the ESB for assistance
in the field;
o Pat Lawless and Tom Sack of the Laboratory Services
Branch (LSB) for chemical analyses;
o Ted Vaughan of the Engineering Support Branch for
field support;
o Tom Prather, Lyn Burchfield, Dr. Rudy Parrish,
Bruce Bartell, Ronnie Moon and Peter Winter of the
Computer Sciences Corporation for computer and
statistical assistance;
o Tom Barnwell of EPA Athens Environmental Research
Laboratory for modeling assistance;
o Mike Marcus of the South Carolina Department of
Health and Environmental Control for his assistance
and guidance;
o Dan K. Gentry and Carl Allsep at the Pendleton-
Clemson Wastewater Treatment Plant for their co-
operation and assistance during the study.
SUMMARY
Maximum Trophic State Index (TSI) calculated for different
loading scenarios of 35% (1983 situation), 75% and 100% of
the design flow of the Pendleton-Clemson WWTP ranged from 61
in 1983 to 68 at 100% of design. These index values are
indicative of eutrophic conditions, but they are less than
70, a suggested regulatory action level.
A worst case scenario under summer-time conditions of thermo-
cline influence and the Pendleton-Clemson WWTP at 100% of
the design flow showed that the average total phosphorus,
bioavailable phosphorus and corrected chlorophyll a concen-
trations would be 88 ug/L, 36 ug/L, and 44 ug/L, respective-
ly, in the the upper reaches of 18-Mile Creek embayment.
Typically, longitudinal phosphorus and algal standing crop
concentrations decrease down the embayment.
-------
o During 1983, total phosphorus concentrations in 18-Mile
Creek, 200 feet downstream of the Pendleton-Clemson WWTP,
at Station EC-1 ranged from 0.1 to 0.8 mg/L. Bioavailable
phosphorus concentrations in the creek were generally less
than 0.1 mg/L.
o Areal total phosphorus loading into 18-Mile Creek erabayraent
of 16.3 g/m^/yr was very high in 1983, but total phosphorus
sediment loss coefficients (a) for the plug flow model (PFR)
ranged from 35/yr to 107/yr in the 4 segments of the embay-
ment. These coefficients were the highest recorded for south-
ern reservoirs, exceeding the maximum for TVA reservoirs of
11.18/yr.
o Average maximum corrected chlorophyll a ranged from 11.83
ug/L at Station A-5 near the mouth to 32.63 ug/L in the
upper reaches of the embayment (Station A-l). During the
summer months of July - September, 1983, the embayment
average maximum corrected chlorophyll a concentration was
relatively stable, only varying from 20.94 ug/L to 22.42 ug/L.
o Total phosphorus input from all known point sources during
this study accounted for 83% of the stream load. The major
phosphorus contributor to 18-Mile Creek was the Pendleton-
Clemson WWTP. It contributed 14% to 20% of the total phos-
phorus loading to 18-Mile Creek during periods of intermedi-
ate flows (50 to 150 cfs). During high flows (>200 cfs),
the Penleton-Clemson WWTP was responsible for up to 60% of
the total phosphorus load. At extremely low flows (<50 cfs),
it was responsible for approximately 45% of the loading to
the Creek.
o The Pendleton-Clemson WWTP, which has a design flow of 1.30
mgd, averaged 0.45 mgd or 35% of the design flow during 1983.
The WWTP was generally well-operated and maintained. A sig-
nificant WWTP performance problem was the occasional loss of
solids from the clarifier during periods of elevated flow.
CONCLUSION
Eighteen-Mile Creek embayment trophic condition will wor-
sen as the Pendleton-Clemson WWTP approaches 100% of the design
hydraulic capacity, yet tertiary wastewater treatment will not
be necessary because the anticipated trophic condition is not
expected to reach hypereutrophic levels.
RECOMMENDATIONS
o When the Pendleton-Clemson WWTP reaches the design flow of
1.30 mgd, the South Carolina Department of Health and
Environmental Control should monitor the situation during
-2-
-------
normal summer-time conditions and adjust the Plug Flow
Reactor Model if necessary.
o Pendleton-Clemson WWTP operators should control the acti-
vated sludge system to prevent clarifier washouts that
result from elevated flows associated with rainfall events.
1. INTRODUCTION
Three years ago, the South Carolina Department of Health
and Environmental Control (DHEC) responded to a phytoplankton
bloom complaint (Appendix A) from a resident living along the
18-Mile Creek embayment of Hartwell Reservoir, South Carolina.
This complaint was unanticipated because of stricter pollution
controls eliminating stabilization ponds within the watershed
and centralizing municipal wastewater treatment at a relatively
new facility, the Pendleton-Clemson Wastewater Treatment Plant
(WWTP), which was operating at 20% of design capacity. Because
of anticipated population growth within the 18-Mile Creek water-
shed and expected increases of nutrient loads into the embayment,
DHEC was concerned about present and future impacts of nutrient
loading. As part of their evaluation, DHEC requested field and
laboratory assistance from the Environmental Services Division
of EPA, Region IV to provide information about:
- concentrations of phosphorus transported into the 18-Mile
Creek embayment by existing stream loads, and
- the effect of increased creek phosphorus loadings upon
embayment phosphorus concentrations and concomitantly
trophic condition.
2. STUDY AREA
Eighteen-Mile Creek is a small, shallow, wadeable piedmont
stream flowing through a watershed of 55.2 mi^. it is the major
source of water for the 18-Mile Creek embayment of Hartwell Reser
voir, South Carolina, which at normal stage is 11,200 acres in
area. The creek flows near several townships including Clemson
and Pendleton, South Carolina (Figure 2.1) located in the north-
western corner of South Carolina. Eighteen-Mile Creek enters
Hartwell Reservoir near Pendleton, South Carolina, and its head-
waters are located more than 15 miles upstream near Easley,
South Carolina. Topographic features of this watershed range
from very steep hill country near the 18-Mile Creek headwaters
to wide flat bottomlands near its mouth. Spring branches and
small creeks make up a large portion of the overall drainage
pattern of the watershed (McCoy, 1963).
Soil types ranging from finely divided clay particles to
very coarse grain sand may be found in the watershed (McCoy,
1963; Herren, 1979). Agricultural uses varying from row crops
-3-
-------
to pastures constitute the largest land use. Included in this
percentage are large areas of forest lands which consist of
hardwoods and evergreens (Herren, 1979).
The watershed up and downstream of Clemson receives a
number of municipal and industrial wastes.
3. STATION LOCATIONS
To accomplish the objectives of this study, EPA concentrated
its sampling efforts oh the 18-Mile Creek embayment of Hartwell
Reservoir and the lower stretch of the creek, downstream of the
Pendleton-Clemson WWTP.
EPA sampling locations were divided into embayment stations,
creek stations, Pendleton-Clemson WWTP, and other point source
discharges (Figures 2.1 and 3.1).
3.1 Embayment Stations
All embayment stations were located over the "old" creek
bed, the deepest part of a transverse transect of the embayment
(Figure 3.1).
o Station A-l was located 200 ft downstream of County Road
71 bridge.
o Station A-2 was located 0.8 river mile downstream of
County Road 71 bridge. The South Carolina Department of
Health and Environmental Control has an ambient monitor-
ing Station, CL-24, at this location.
o Station A-3 was located 1.4 river miles downstream of
County Road 71 bridge.
o Station A-4 was located 2.0 river miles downstream of
County Road 71 bridge.
o Station A-5 was located 2.4 river miles downstream of
County Road 71 bridge.
3.2 Creek Stations
o Station EC-1 was the site for the long term water quality
monitoring station on 18-Mile Creek (Figure 3.1). The
station was approximately 600 feet downstream of the
Pendleton-Clemson WWTP discharge (CP-001).
-4-
-------
Stations EC-2 through EC-8 were used during the low and
high flow dye studies of June and November.
o Stat
o Stat
o Stat
on EC-2 was 0.45 river mile downstream from CP-001.
on EC-3 was 0.93 river mile downstream from CP-001.
on EC-4 was 1.71 river miles downstream from CP-001.
o Station EC-5 was 2.16 river miles downstream from CP-001.
o Station EC-6 was 2.42 river miles downstream from CP-001.
o Station EC-7 was 2.83 river miles downstream from CP-001.
o Station EC-8 was 3.21 river miles downstream from CP-001.
3.3 WWTP Station
o Station CP-001 was located on the east bank of 18-Mile
Creek approximately 50 feet downstream of the County Road
279 bridge.
3.4 Other Point Source Discharge Stations
Active point discharges within the 18-Mile Creek watershed
were sampled during August 1983 (Figure 2.1). The following
facilities were sampled:
o City of Liberty - Lusk Lagoon (LL)
o City of Liberty - Owens Lagoon (LO)
o Whispering Pines Subdivision (WP)
o Dan River (Liberty) (DR)
o City of Easley - Lagoon No. 1 and No. 2 (ELI, EL2)
o Town of Central - Central WWTP (TC)
o Pendleton Finishing (PF)
o Pendleton-Clemson WWTP (PC)
A complete characterization of the facilities is included
in the Point Sources Monitoring section (5.3) of this report.
5-
-------
4. METHODS
4.1 Embayment Water Quality Monitoring
Physical measurements of the embayment width and length
were obtained from scaled maps and transit readings. A record-
ing fathometer was used to measure bottom contour transects
(Figure 3.2) according to Engineering Support Branch Standard
Operating Procedures (SOPs) (EPA, 1980). These measurements
were used to develop an embayment surface area and volume curve
(Figure 4.1) and other physical measurements useful in predict-
ing loading scenarios and characterizing the embayment.
During February through September, one day per month was
allocated for embayment water sample collections, temperature-
oxygen-chlorophyll a profile measurements, and Secchi disc and
light transmission readings. Temperature and oxygen profile
measurements and light transmission and Secchi depth readings
were conducted according to the Environmental Biology Section's
SOP (EPA, 1982a). Depth integrated water samples were collected
from the epilimnion; if the thermocline was absent then depth
integrated water samples were collected from the euphotic zone
(depths where >1% light transmission occurred). Water samples
were mixed thoroughly in the laboratory and subdivided into
three subsamples for the purpose of determining chlorophyll a,
total phosphorus (T-P), bioavailable phosphorus (B-P), ammonia-
nitrogen (NH3-N), nitrite-nitrate-nitrogen (NO2-NO3-N) and
total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN). Total phosphorus and the nitro-
gen series were determined according to procedures found in the
Laboratory Services Branch SOP (EPA, 1981). Chlorophyll a, cor-
rected for phaeophytin, was analyzed according to the Environ-
mental Biology Section's SOP (EPA, 1982a). Bioavailable phos-
phorus (B-P) was determined using EPA's standard algal growth
potential test (AGPT) (Miller, et a_l., 1978). where nitrogen
limiting situations existed, AGPT subsamples were spiked with
sufficient inorganic nitrogen to change the sample from nitrogen
limited to phosphorus limited conditions thus allowing conversion
of maximum algal standing crop dry weight to B-P via a factor
derived by Miller, et al^. (1978).
4.2 Creek Water Quality Monitoring
Water quality monitoring on 18-Mile Creek began in March
1983 and ended in November 1983. The objective of characteriz-
ing the phosphorus loading to the creek was achieved with a
stream stage recorder, creek flow measurements and regular
sampling at Stations EC-1 and CP-001.
The stage-discharge curve (Figure 4.2) for 18-Mile Creek
was established early in the study using measurements over a
-6-
-------
wide range of creek flows. Creek flow was measured at Station
EC-1 using a wading rod and Price AA current meter. The creek
stage was noted at the beginning and end of each flow measure-
ment at the Station EC-1 cross-section. Discharge was computed
using the midsection method outlined in the USDI Water Measure-
ment Manual (1975). A stage recorder and staff gauge were in-
stalled approximately 200 feet upstream from Station EC-1. Dur-
ing each sampling period, a 7-day stage recorder was set up to
provide continuous flow information needed for loading calcula-
tions.
The EC-1 station was equipped with two automatic sequential
samplers set on 6-hour intervals. One sampler had 5 ml of H2SO4
in each bottle to preserve the samples for nutrient analyses.
The other sampler collected un-preserved samples for AGPTs. The
intake lines for the Station EC-1 samplers were suspended on a
rope spanning the stream section and attached to a float provid-
ing for continuous submergence without stream bottom contact.
Station EC-1 samplers were set to sample with a 20 minute lag
behind samplers at the CP-001 (upstream) sampling station. The
20 minutes accounted for the base flow time of travel from Sta-
tion CP-001 to EC-1 as measured by several time of travel studies.
Five complete weeks and two partial weeks were successfully sam-
pled using the automatic samplers at Station EC-1.
Station CP-001 at the Pendleton-Clemson WWTP was located
at the discharge from the chlorine contact basin. Two samplers,
one preserved with H2SO4 and one unpreserved, were located at
CP-001 and set to sample at 6-hour intervals. The facility ef-
fluent flow measurement system was used to calculate loadings
from the CP-001 discharge. The system consisted of a 90° V-
notch weir, float, totalizer, and strip chart recorder. The
flow measurement system was checked for accuracy several times
during the study and found to be accurate.
For high flow periods, individual water samples were ana-
lyzed for T-P, B-P, total suspended solids (TSS), NH3-N, NO2-
NO3-N, and TKN. Individual water samples were analyzed to de-
fine variability under high flow conditions. During base flow,
the individual water samples were composited and the one time
composite sample was analyzed for the previously listed variables.
4.3 Dye Tracer Studies
Two dye tracer studies were conducted, one at high (storm
event) and one at low (base) flow periods in 18-Mile Creek. The
procedure used in conducting both tracer studies was a modified
time-of-travel practice. A known volume of Rhodamine Wt tracer
dye was injected into the effluent channel of the Pendleton-
Clemson WWTP. The injected WWTP effluent was monitored for dye
at preselected stations (EC-1 to A-2) along 18-Mile Creek down-
stream of the discharge point (Figure 3.1). A boat mounted
-7-
-------
Turner Design Model 10 fluorometer operated in the flow-through
mode was used to determine fluorescence. All samples were col-
lected as the dye peak passed the respective station. successive
samples were collected at the peak until a decrease was observed
in dye concentrations. The last sample collected before the
dye concentration decreased was retained as the representative
sample for that station. Sample analyses included T-P, B-P/
nitrogen series, and TSS.
The low flow dye study was conducted during a dry period
where the non-point source contribution was minimal and creek
flow was nearly constant. This period occurred during May 31
to June 1, 1983. Dye was released into the effluent of the
Pendleton-Clemson WWTP at 1320 hour on May 13. Monitoring con-
tinued along a 4-mile reach of 18-Mile Creek through 1235 hour
of the following day.
Conditions for the high flow study were quite different.
For this study, a predictable hydrographic response to a single
rainfall event was necessary. This event occurred during the
period November 15-16, 1983. Dye was released into the effluent
of the Pendleton-Clemson WWTP on November 15 at i21° D^e
release coincided with the rising limb of the J ^ay.
monitoring continued through 1320 hour of the followxng day.
4.4 Point Source Sampling
Sampling was conducted at nine active industrial and muni-
cipal point source discharges to 18-Mile Creek (Figure 2.1).
Two consecutive 24-hour composite samples were collected from
each of the nine discharges. Analyses included the respective
applicable NPDES permit parameters plus T-P and nitrogen series.
ISCO automatic samplers, Model 1680 or 2100, were used to
collect composite samples. Sample collection, preservation and
handling was completed according to the Engineering Support
Branch SOP's (EPA, 1980).
A continuous flow measurement was made at all nine dis-
charges. If the discharger's flow measurement system was ac-
curate within +10%, the investigator used the existing system.
If the flow sensor or recorder was inaccurate and uncorrectable,
the investigator installed a portable ISCO flow meter and re-
corder.
The following facilities were sampled during the period
August 9-11, 1983.
-8-
-------
Facility
Sample
Code
Location
NPDES No.
Liberty Lusk Lagoon
LL
Liberty, SC
SC0026174
Liberty Owens Lagoon
LO
Liberty, SC
SC0026182
Whispering Pines Subdivision
WP
Easley, SC
SC0028703
Dan River
DR
Liberty, SC
SC0000264
Easley Lagoon it1
ELI
Easley, SC
SC0023078
Gasley Lagoon #2
EL2
Easley, SC
SC0023078
Town of Central
TC
Central, SC
SC0025003
Pendleton Finishing
PF
Pendleton, SC
SC0000477
Pendleton-Clemson WWTP
PC
Pendleton, SC
SC0035700
5. RESULTS
5.1 Embayment Monitoring
Stage levels of the embayment can range from 625 feet
above mean sea level (msl) as referenced to National Geodetic
Vertical Datura to a full pool elevation of 665 feet msl. The
median stage during the embayment sampling period (Table 5.1)
was 660.9 feet msl, or 0.9 feet higher than the normal pool
level of 660 feet msl. Stage level changed a maximum of 7.5
feet during the study period attaining a high of 662.9 feet msl
in May and decreasing to a low of 655.4 feet msl in September.
At any one time, pool level was no more than 4.6 feet below
normal pool stage nor greater than 2.9 feet above the normal
pool of 660 feet msl.
For purposes of discussion, the discontinuity layer or
thermocline (metalimnion) is defined as 1°C At per 3.28 feet
(one meter) fully realizing that many professional limnologists
leave interpretation more open-ended by defining the thermocline
as "the layer of water which the temperature exhibits the great-
est difference in vertical direction" (Ruttner, 1963).
There was no thermocline in the winter months (Figures
5.15.5) nor because of shallowness was a thermocline detected
at embayment Stations A-l and A-2. During April, there were
indications that a thermocline was forming. At Stations A-3,
A-4 and A-5 near the mouth of 18 Mile Creek embayment there was
a definite break in the thermograph at the 6.6 feet. - 9.8 feet
depth, respectively. In May, the thermocline became clearly es-
tablished (Figures 5.3-5.5) at stations A-3, A-4 and A-5. The
-------
thermocline was detectable at Stations A-4 and A-5 throughout
the remainder of the embayment sampling period. As summer pro-
gressed, the thermocline extended down to greater depths until
August when the hypolimnion was obliterated and the thermoclinal
zone reached to the bottom. In August and September, a thermo-
cline was not detectable at Station A-3, and by September the
top of the thermocline was very deep (47 feet to 49 feet) at
Stations A-4 and A-5. The extension of the thermocline to the
bottom and the loss of hypolimnetic waters from the 18-Mile
Creek embayment was attributed to man-made drawdown effects
which began in June (Table 5,1). The loss of nutrient-rich
hypolimnetic waters in late summer and autumn through drawdown
is a major difference between large reservoir and natural lake
limnology. This difference effects the study approach to nui-
sance bloom problems in embayments of reservoirs. More emphasis
is usually put on sampling of the epilimnion because summer and
autumn nuisance phytoplankton blooms are effected mostly by
nutrients entering from the watershed and mixing with epilim-
netic waters.
Twice during the study, a temperature survey was conducted
to determine the plunge zone (Figures 5.6 and 5.7). These sur-
veys were conducted in March and July. The March creek tempera-
ture was 10.7°C. This temperature was detected in bottom waters
at Station A-l. At Station A-2f there presumably was a mixing
of creek and embayment waters because water temperatures at
Station A-2 ranged from 12.7°C at the bottom to 13.6°C at the
surface (Figure 5.6). Summertime creek temperature represented
by the July survey was 27.2°C. In the shallow pool upstream of
Highway 71 bridge (Station EC-8) the bottom water temperature
had increased to 27.7°C where it remained at Station A-l, sug-
gesting that the summertime plunge zone begins in the area of
Station A-l. Bottom waters at Station A-2 warmed to 29.5°C con-
tinuing down the embayment and overflowing the thermocline at
Station A-3 where the top of the thermocline was 28.1°C (Figure
5.3). This estimate of the extent of the plunge zone was further
substantiated by the dye study of May 13 to June 1 where substantial
losses of phosphorus were observed between stations A-l and A-2.
Throughout the embayment sampling period, euphotic zone
depth ranged from 1.3 feet to 33.1 feet and transparency ranged
from 0.3 foot to 10.2 feet (Table 5.2). Generally, the euphotic
zone increased and transparency increased from Station A-l down
the embayment to Station A-5. April transparencies were generally
low ranging from 0.7 foot to 1.0 foot at all stations and exhibit-
ing no trends because measurements followed a storm event (Figure
5.8) the prior week which increased turbidity in the embayment.
Dissolved oxygen (DO) ranged from <1 mg/L several times
during the study to 10.9 mg/L at Station A-5 on March 22, 1983
(Appendix F, Figures 5.9 - 5.13). Concentrations were 6.0 mg/L
or greater throughout the water column from February to April
-10-
-------
(Figures 5.9 - 5.13). In May, when the thermocline was es-
tablished, greater oxygen demand upon deeper waters began de-
creasing DO concentrations until substantial portions of the
water column contained waters with <1 mg DO/L from June through
August (Figures 5.12 - 5.13). With the onset of autumn turn-
over, low DO waters were only measured in September near the
bottom at Stations A-4 and A-5 (Figures 5.12 - 5.13). Through-
out the embayment sampling period, the relatively shallow sta-
tions, A-l and A-2, had DO concentrations greater than 4 mg/L
except in July when near bottom waters contained <1 mg/L of DO
at Station A-2 (Figures 5.9 and 5.10).
Corrected chlorophyll a ranged from 0.39 ug/L at the 36.0
foot depth at Station A-5 on August 15, 1983 to 86.43 ug/L near
the surface at Station A-l on May 17, 1983 (Appendix F, Figures
5.14 and 5.18). Concentrations varied with depth, but usually
maximum concentrations were either observed in the euphotic/
epilimnion zone or upper layers of the thermocline. Maximum
values by station and date were transposed to Table 5.3 which
shows over the embayment sampling period that the average maxi-
mum corrected chlorophyll a ranged from 11.83 ug/L at Station
A-5 to 32.63 ug/L at Station A-l. When all station maximums
were averaged by month, the average maximum corrected chlorophyll
a ranged from 8.43 ug/L on April 12, 1983 to 34.12 ug/L on May
17, 1983 when the thermocline was well established. During the
summer months of July to September, the average maximum chloro-
phyll concentration was relatively stable in the embayment only
varying from 20.94 ug/L to 22.42 ug/L.
Extensive sampling was conducted along numerous transects
at the 1-foot depth for the purpose of determining variability
of chlorophyll a along the horizontal plane. Collections were
made on August 8, 1983 over 16 transverse transects. The per-
cent coefficient of variation (Table 5.4) for the entire embay-
ment was 70.54% with a mean of 14.35 ug/L and a standard devi-
ation of 10.12 ug/L. For any one transect, the percent coeffi-
cient of variation was much less, ranging from 7.37% near Station
A-l to 28.58% near Station A-3.
5.2 Creek Water Quality Monitoring
The water quality monitoring of 18-Mile Creek began in
March and ended in November 1984. The monitoring effort con-
sisted of monthly sampling at water quality Station EC-1 and
the Pendleton-Clemson WWTP effluent (CP-001) as well as two dye
studies at low and high flows in May and November, respectively.
The monthly sampling events usually covered a full 7-day period,
and the dye studies, as discussed later in the report, were each
completed in 2 days. Data and charts that show relationships
between flow and several water quality parameters are in the
Appendices with a complete discussion of the data on an event
by event basis (Appendix B).
-11-
-------
The monitoring effort produced a data base that provided
an in-depth assessment of the current nutrient loadings to the
18-Mile Creek embayment of Hartwell Reservoir, the various
sources of nutrients to the system, and the degree to which the
nutrient inputs impact creek and embayment water quality. A
stage-discharge curve (Figure 4.2) was developed early in the
study from flow measurements at Station EC-1. The relationship
between rainfall and creek flow was well defined as four of the
sampling events occurred during periods of rainfall and elevated
creek flow (Figures 5.19 - 5.24). Flows generally were less
than 100 cfs during base flow periods, the lowest recorded flow
of 37 cfs occurring in August. Flow during rainfall periods
often exceeded 200 cfs. The April event, which experienced two
periods of slight rainfall (0.20 in and 0.16 in) (Figure 5.8)
indicated that the creek flow responded to approximately 0.20
to 0.25 inches of rainfall as recorded at the WWTP (Figure 5.20).
The amount of rainfall needed to elevate creek flow would also
be dependent on other factors such as antecedent rainfall con-
ditions. Pendleton-Clemson WWTP performance markedly declined
during periods of rainfall when WWTP flows increased because
of infiltration/inflow in the collection system. Effluent
quality was normally good as BOD5 and TSS concentrations were
often less than 10 mg/L during the study (Appendix B). Effluent
T-P concentrations ranged from 1.0 mg/L to 2.0 mg/L during the
study except when elevated flows occurred and WWTP performance
deteriorated. When the effluent TSS concentrations increased
because of sludge blanket washouts from the clarifiers, T-P
concentrations increased substantially to 30 mg/L (Table 5.5
and Appendix B). The flow to the WWTP exceeded the design flow
of 1.30 mgd only once during the sampling periods. However,
WWTP flows following rainfall events usually exceeded the pre-
ceeding flows by 50% to 100%. The WWTP contributed 14% to 20%
of the T-P loading to 18-Mile Creek during periods of inter-
mediate flows (50 to 150 cfs); however, during periods of high
flow (>200 cfs), the WWTP was responsible for up to 60% of the
T-P loading to the creek. At extremely low flows (<50 cfs),
the WWTP was responsible for up to 45% of the T-P loading,
primarily because at lower flows, the WWTP flow comprised a
higher percentage of the total creek flow. The effect of an
immediate upstream point source on stream T-P concentrations
has been shown in previous research (Baker, 1983).
The T-P concentrations in 18-Mile Creek at Station EC-1
ranged from 0.09 mg/L to 0.77 mg/L (Table 5.5). The lowest
concentrations (0.09 to 0.33 mg/L) occurred during periods of
intermediate flow (Figure 5.25). The highest T-P concentration
(0.77 mg/L) was observed during a period of high flow (Figure
5.25). High T-P concentrations which were observed during
periods of elevated creek flow were usually in response to a
decline in performance of the WWTP (Figure 5.25). Higher T-P
concentrations were also noted during periods of low flow as
the WWTP flow comprised a higher percentage of the creek flow.
-12-
-------
The March event shows the creek T-P increasing from 0.11
mg/L to 0.19 mg/L as the creek flow increased, only to be fol-
lowed by a more dramatic T-P increase to 0.50 mg/L as the WWTP
effluent (CP-001) quality deteriorated (Table 5.7). The WWTP
in this instance had an increase in effluent TSS from 5 mg/L
to 1100 mg/L and T-P from 4.30 mg/L to 24.00 mg/L when a wash-
out of the clarifier sludge blanket occurred. Operator records
showed 10 occurrences of clarifier sludge blanket washouts dur-
ing 1983. Four of these washouts occurred during periods when
EPA was sampling the creek and WWTP effluent.
The WWTP effluent B-P concentrations varied widely during
the study. The March event showed B-P concentrations of 2.36
mg/L to 3.93 mg/L that comprised 82% of the effluent T-P (Table
5.7). The B-P data for the WWTP was incomplete for many of the
sampling events due to unknown inteferences with the AGPT pro-
cedure .
Creek B-P concentrations were generally less than 100 ug/L.
The percentage of the 18-Mile Creek T-P loading comprised by the
B-P fraction during the March event was approximately 30% at low
flows (Table 5.7). At higher flows, the percentage of the B-P
fraction decreased to less than 10%.
The upper reach of 18-Mile Creek is best defined as an al-
luvial channel having a typical width of 48 feet and an average
depth of one foot. The creek has a large sediment load of clays
and sands that move partially as bed load and partially as sus-
pended load. The entrainment, transport and subsequent deposi-
tion of the sediment depends largely on the flow regime; how-
ever, characteristics such as the property of the sediment it-
self, changing downstream channel configurations and interfacing
pool conditions also alter the fate of the sediment and phosphorus.
In an effort to better estimate the fate of phosphorus in
the water column, a predictive phosphorus curve for resuspension
and deposition based on changes in particulate phosphorus concen-
tration per unit time versus mean velocity for the high flow dye
study was developed. A regression analysis of the data was com-
pleted using a parabolic curve of best fit (Figure 5.26). Low
flow data was not used in generating the curve since high pool
elevations altered free flow conditions at some creek stations.
Particulate phosphorus estimates were determined for each
sampling station by substracting the B-P concentration from the
T-P concentration. Bioavailable phosphorus was equated to total
dissolved phosphorus. This was believed reasonable since the
creek lacked substantial algal growths that would normally in-
validate this assumption by grossly underestimating particulate
phosphorus. The absence of aquatic vegetation was attributed
to a continually moving sediment bed load and a creek travel time
which prevented establishment of phytoplankton growth.
-13-
-------
The predictive curve was developed by plotting the differ-
ence in dye peak particulate phosphorus from station to station
divided by travel time, versus mean reach velocity. Particulate
phosphorus transport showed little response to velocities less
than 1.3 feet/sec. (Figure 5.26). This was due to visibly high
colloidal solids in the creek during the rainfall/runoff event.
These non-settleable particulate phosphorus bearing solids pre-
sumably remained in suspension over the entire range of veloci-
ties encountered. As the unimpeded creek waters were slowed by
embayed waters, velocity decreased from 2.0 feet/sec. to 1.3
feet/sec. and the denser particulate phosphorus bearing solids
settled out leaving non-settleable colloidal solids in the
creek water column. Since colloidal matter does not effectively
settle out, there was little change noted in particulate phos-
phorus at velocities less than 1.3 feet/sec.
The low flow (58 cfs) dye tracer study was conducted when
the embayment was at a high pool elevation (663 feet msl). There-
fore, the unimpeded flow reach of interest was from Stations EC-1
to EC-5. This creek reach had a cumulative travel time of 2.50
hours with an average velocity of 1.26 feet/sec. In this reach,
dye peak T-P concentrations decreased, B-P increased, and TSS
showed little change (Table 5.8).
As creek waters were slowed by the embayment, B-P and TSS
concentrations dramatically decreased (Table 5.8 and Figure 5.28).
Beyond this point, traced waters impeded by the tributary embay-
ment were displaced downward and traveled only 0.26 river mile
along the bottom during the next 2.8 hours.
In contrast, the high flow dye tracer study was conducted
at a low pool elevation (657 feet msl) during a storm event.
Sampling was started on the rising limb of the hydrograph and
continued downstream on the dye peak through the crest and re-
ceding limb. Measured flow rates ranged from 86.7 cfs to 103.3
cfs (Table 5.8). The unimpeded flow reach of interest was from
Stations EC-2 to EC-8, a distance of 2.76 river miles. This
reach had a cumulative travel time of 2.88 hours with an average
velocity of 1.41 feet/sec. Total-phosphorus values increased
with increasing distance downstream, while B-P and TSS concen-
trations showed little variation (Table 5.8). The only exception
to this trend was noted at sampling station EC-6 where a slight
decrease was measured in T-P concentration. Since the mean seg-
ment velocity upstream of EC-6 was 0.72 foot/sec., potential
deposition of settleable particulate phosphorus could have oc-
curred (Figure 5.26). Again, as the dye traced waters reached
the pool interface, a dramatic decrease in velocity produced
rapid deposition of TSS and phosphorus.
-14-
-------
The dye studies showed that 18-Mile Creek transports phos-
phorus bearing solids to Stations EC-5 and A-2 depositing them
along the confined channel bottom at low pool levels and in the
upstream overbank flats at high pool levels.
Concentration profiles generated from dye peak sampling at
high and low flow periods show the fate of phosphorus (Figure
5.27) and sediment (Figures 5.28 and 5.29) as they move down-
stream. Tributary influence between Stations EC-1 and EC-2 pre-
vented any analysis of nutrient fate between these stations
(Table 5.8).
5.3 Point Source Monitoring
Basin nutrient loads are summarized in Table 5.6 and Fig-
ures 5.30 and 5.31. For the purpose of this discussion, atten-
tion is focused on phosphorus because it is easier and less ex-
pensive to control than nitrogen. The T-P input from all point
sources accounted for 83% of the creek load at Station EC-1
(Table 5.6). Usually it is assumed that point source phosphorus
is transported through a stream system although large portions
of these inputs may be stored in temporary sinks on a stream
bottom. We determined from the dye tracer studies that particu-
late phosphorus deposition occurs in the creek at low flow. Ob-
serving that the flow rate was even lower during the watershed
point source monitoring (37 cfs) than during the dye study (58
cfs), we assumed that deposition occurred along a major portion
of the creek reach. These nutrient sinks would then be available
for resuspension during periods of higher flow (Figure 5.26, Ap-
pendix K).
Non-point source phosphorus input to 18-Mile Creek via run-
off during the watershed point source basin study was not con-
sidered significant since rainfall was sparse (<0.25 inches)
during the 2-week period prior to the point source sampling.
The major phosphorus contributor to the creek during the
watershed point source study was the Pendleton-Clemson WWTP
which accounted for 45% of the total point source phosphorus
input. Average daily loading from the Pendleton-Clemson WWTP of
40.9 lbs/day during the watershed point source study was exceeded
only one other time during the entire study period (Table 5.6).
5.4 Pendleton-Clemson WWTP Performance
The Pendleton-Clemson WWTP, which has a design flow of 1.30
million gallons per day (mgd), averaged 0.45 mgd or 35% of the
design flow during 1983. Staff at the activated sludge facility
-15-
-------
operated one of two aeration basins in the extended aeration
mode. The complete treatment system consisted of two comminu-
tors, a Parshall flume, two static screens, two aeration basins
with two 25 hp surface aerators each, two secondary clarifiers,
a chlorine contact basin, a 90° v-notch weir for flow measure-
ment, and cascade aeration prior to discharge to 18-Mile Creek.
Sludge is aerobically digested and dewatered on 16 drying beds.
Return sludge rate was 700 gpm (1.0 mgd) using one of the three
available return sludge pumps. Return sludge flow rate is measured
using a magnetic flow meter.
Average monthly BOD5 and TSS concentrations for 1983 were
16 mg/L and 7 mg/L, respectively (Figure 5.32), Effluent quality
during the study period was within the average monthly NPDES per-
mit limits of 30 mg/L for both BOD5 and TSS for all months except
March when the average monthly TSS concentration was 35 mg/L.
Monitoring was performed once per week for permit parameters.
Additional process control testing included settleometers, aera-
tion basin MLSS/MLVSS, and sludge blanket monitoring. Calcula-
tion of F:M ratios and appropriate wasting rates (volume and lb/d)
were also conducted by the operations staff.
A significant problem concerning Clemson-Pendleton WWTP per-
formance was the occasional loss of solids from the clarifiers
during periods of elevated flow. During each of the sampling
events when the WWTP experienced elevated flows, the effluent
TSS showed marked increases because of solids washout from the
clarifiers (Table 5.7). Only one event resulted in flows at the
WWTP which exceeded 1.0 mgd or 75% of design flow. The flow dur-
ing that one event (March 19-24) peaked at 1.35 mgd (only 4% over
design) (Table 5.7). Each of the clarifier solids washouts was
accompanied by a correspondingly high T-P concentration. During
these washout periods, the WWTP was contributing from 50% to 70%
of the T-P load to the creek. The WWTP contributed approximately
14% to 20% of the yearly average creek T-P loading.
The cause of the washouts can be attributed to a slow settling
sludge as observed by settleometer tests. The surface overflow and
solids loading rates during the washout period were below the recom-
mended ranges for secondary clarifiers. Sludge settleability, as
indicated by the regular settleometer monitoring data at the WWTP
and several EPA measurements was extremely slow (5 minute settled
sludge volume >900 ml/L). With sludge that settles at these slower
rates and both clarifiers in operation, the effluent is well clari-
fied at low or base flows. However, when influent flow to the WWTP
substantially increased, the time needed to adequately settle solids
was reduced, sludge blanket levels in the clarifiers increased, and
solids washout occurred.
-16
-------
As discussed in the Water Quality Monitoring Section (4.2)
most of the washouts occurred during the hours when the WWTP wa
not staffed. The operators demonstrated during the November
sampling event that by using the second aeration basin for
equalization, these washouts can be avoided. This equalization
option may not be available as WWTP flows approach design level
6. PHOSPHORUS LOADING MODELS
6•1 Modified Vollenweider Model
The Modified Vollenweider Model was originally selected to
describe the relationship of phosphorus loadings to embayment
trophic status (Rast and Lee, 1978; Vollenweider, 1976? Reckhow
and Chapra, 1983). The Vollenweider model is a simple lake
nutrient model that uses a mass balance approach to predict
lake phosphorus concentrations based on phosphorus loadings to
a waterbody (Mancini, je_t £jL . , 1983). The model is based on the
following assumptions:
o The lake is completely mixed
o The lake is at a steady state
o Net sedimentation of phosphorus occurs
The model was selected not only because of its simplicity
but because it has been shown in many studies (Rast and Lee,
1978) to be a good estimator of in-lake phosphorus concentra-
tions. The model is also used as a management tool to assess
the effects of altered phosphorus loadings on lake trophic
status.
The form of the modified Vollenweider model used was;
P (mg/L) =
z(l/T +a)
w
where: P (mg/L) = predicted embayment phosphorus concen-
tration
-17-
-------
Lr (gm P/m^/yr) - areal phosphorus loading to the
embayment
z (ra) = mean depth of the embayment
Tw (y*") = hydraulic detention time of the embayment
a (yr~l) = phosphorus sedimentation coefficient
The T-P loadings from each sampling event were weighted to
yield an average yearly loading of 82.4 lb/d (Tables 6.1 and 6.2).
Adjustments were made to the phosphorus loading value to account
for sampling bias and deposition/resuspension prior to the de-
livery of phosphorus into the 18-Mile Creek embayment of Hart-
well Reservoir (Appendix L). The sampling program was biased
towards rainfall with resulting high flows and poor WWTP perfor-
mance (Section 5.4) as shown by comparing sampling schedule to
the rainfall data in Table 6.3 and Figure 5.8. An adjustment
for sampling bias was accomplished by comparing the percentage
of high flow days sampled during the EPA sampling periods versus
the number of days during 1983 where over 0.30 inches of rainfall
occurred, the apparent rainfall .required to produce a substantial
increase in creek flow. Based on our experiences and assessment
of the flow tracings, we used a flow of 1.5 times base flow to
delimit between high or low flow conditions. Twenty-three per-
cent of the samples collected during the study were collected
under high flow conditions. This compared with 13% of the days
during 1983 that had over 0.30 inches of rainfall (Table 6.3).
Therefore, a downward adjustment of 10% to 74.2 lb/d was imposed
on the original unadjusted average yearly T-P loading of 82.4
lb/d (Table 6.2; Appendix L).
The effect of deposition/resuspension on the particulate
phosphorus concentrations was considerable from water quality
Station EC-1 to the embayment of Hartwell Reservoir. We deter-
mined that a velocity of 1.30 fps could resuspend particulate
phosphorus in the creek (Figure 5.26). Based on our best esti-
mate of the threshold point between settling or deposition and
resuspension, the yearly average loading value was adjusted.
A flow of 80 cfs was selected as the criteria to separate the
sampling periods according to whether deposition or resuspension
was the controlling transport mode. Eighty cfs translated to a
velocity of approximately .1.50 fps at Station EC-1, thus insuring
suspension as the transport mode. Accounting for transport mode
resulted in a downward adjustment of 3.7% to the yearly average
loading (revised previously for sampling bias to 74.2 lb/d) which
resulted in a final adjusted loading of 71.5 lb/d (Tables 6.1
and 6.2; Appendix L).
-18-
-------
The Vollenweider model contains one factor that can be
used to adjust the equation. This factor is the phosphorus
sedimentation coefficient, a (yr-1), which is not a physical
measure but an average of all the positive and negative ef-
fects an embayment system has on phosphorus species (Vollen-
weider, 1976). The originaj. Vollenweider work on northern
lakes showed o equal to 10/z (Mancini, et a_l. , 1983). Re-
searchers (Placke, 1983; Higgins and Kim, 1980) have shown
that o values for southern reservoirs can be substantially
higher where soil types and reservoir morphology are different.
TVA_published an average
-------
was 33.8 lbs/d (Table 6.4). The areal B-P loading at a pool
level of 661 feet msl was calculated to be 7.7 gm/m^/yr for
B-P. The model predicted a B-P concentration in the embayment
of 9 ug/L. The average B-P concentration for Station A-5 was
9 ug/L (Table 6.5). The B-P concentration is similar to the
T-P concentration prediction as both appear to estimate con-
centrations in the area of Stations A-3 to A-5 for the respective
parameters.
6•2 Plug Flow Reactor (PFR) Model
The Vollenweider model has inherent weaknesses because of
the initial simplifying assumptions about complete mixing and
steady state conditions. These weaknesses were realized during
the 18-Mile Creek study as the Vollenweider model did not ade-
quately depict the 18-Mile Creek embayment situation. Studies
conducted in other southern reservoirs have pointed out the
problem of using the Vollenweider approach that yields an average
value for reservoir phosphorus (Higgins and Kim, 1980). TVA has
suggested that a plug flow reactor model should be the model of
choice for reservoirs where longitudinal concentration gradients
are observed (Higgins and Kim, 1980; Placke, 1983). The model
is of the form:
where: Px (ug/L) = predicted T-P or B-P concentration at segment x
Pi (ug/L) = actual input T-P or B-P concentration to segment
x from upstream embayment segment
a (yr"l) = phosphorus sedimentation coefficient for segment
x (yr)
T (yr) = hydraulic detention time of segment x
w
The 18-Mile Creek embayment had previously been divided into
20 sections in order to develop the Area - Volume curve (Figure
4.1). Seventeen of the sections (through Station A-5) were fur-
ther divided into 4 segments based on the embayment water quality
stations for the PFR model evaluation. Station A-l was used as
the input to the embayment. Segment 1 was comprised of sections
1-6, segment 2 of sections 7-11, segment 3 of sections 12-14, and
segment 4 of sections 15-17 (Table 6.6). Segment 1 corresponds
to the embayment Station A-2, segment 2 to embayment Station A-3,
segment 3 to embayment Station A-4, and segment 4 to embayment
Station A-5.
-20-
-------
Actual embayment T-P and B-P data were used to develop
the phosphorus sedimentation coefficient (a) for each segment
(Table 6.1). Our approach was different from the TVA approach
in that we varied o from segment to segment, whereas TVA used
an average for the entire waterbody under investigation (Higgins
and Kim, 1980). TVA assumed equal depth and width through the
reservoirs they evaluated. We did not make that assumption as
the detention time of each segment was determined from the 18-
Mile Creek embayment Area-Volume curve data.
Eight scenarios were evaluated using the PFR model. Table
6.7 lists the scenarios and results for the T-P evaluations and
Table 6.8 lists the B-P results. The predicted epilimnion con-
centrations under existing conditions with two different thermo-
cline levels were evaluated because the input T-P from 18-Mile
Creek tended to mix in the epilimnion. The two thermocline
levels were 628 feet msl, which was the average thermocline dur-
ing the study (not including months where no thermocline existed),
and 639 feet msl which was the average thermocline level for the
period July to September. The embayment T-P concentrations pre-
dicted with the thermocline at 628 feet msl and 639 feet msl show
no increase at segment 1 (Station A-2) because the thermocline
did not develop in the sections contained within this segment.
The T-P concentrations slightly increased at segment 2 (Station
A-3) and increased substantially at segments 3 (Station A-4) and
4 (Station A-5) to 48 ug/L and 54 ug/L, respectively, for the
628 feet msl and 639 feet msl thermoclines. The concentrations
with the thermocline at 639 feet msl were higher than those at
628 feet msl because of the decrease in volume with the thermo-
cline at higher levels (Table 6,1). Similar results were shown
for B-P as the concentrations in segment 3 increased from 15 ug/L
to 17 ug/L for the 628 feet msl case and 19 ug/L for the 639 feet
msl thermocline (Table 6.8). The predicted B-P concentration for
segment 4 with a 639 feet msl thermocline was increased 100% over
the observed concentration of 9 ug/L.
Six additional scenarios were evaluated for both T-P and
B-P based on projected increases in the flow at the Pendleton-
Clemson WWTP. For flows at the WWTP of 75% and 100% of the de-
sign flow, the model was used to predict embayment T-P and B-P
concentrations for whole embayment, 628 feet msl thermocline,
and 639 feet msl thermocline conditions (Tables 6.7 and 6.8).
For both flow conditions (75% and 100% of design), the T-P
and B-P concentrations increased as the volume decreased using
the embayment, 628 feet msl, and 639 feet msl thermocline con-
ditions. The worst case for all the scenarios would therefore
be the 100% of design flow with a thermocline at 639 feet msl.
The results of this scenario indicate that a T-P concentration
-21-
-------
of approximately 70 ug/L could be expected for segments 3 and
4 (Stations A-4 and A-5) and T-P concentrations in the high 80
ug/L range could be expected at segment 1 (Station A-2). These
are estimates which are based on yearly average T-P data and
the assumptions outlined in Appendix K. Therefore, the peak
T-P concentrations within the embayment could exceed the pre-
dicted concentrations which were based on yearly average load-
ings, concentrations, and flows. The B-P worst case results
(100% of design flow with a 639 feet thermocline) predict B-P
concentrations of approximately 30 ug/L for segments 2, 3, and
4 and a concentration of 36 ug/L for segment 1 (Station A-2).
Although nutrient loading models have been used frequently
for management decisions, they are of limited value unless cause
and effect relationships can be established, preferably with
field data. At first glance, the embayment monitoring data did
not show any direct relationships between phosphorus concentra-
tion and algal standing crop as expressed via the chlorophyll a
variable under phosphorus limiting conditions. A closer examina
tion of the data, however, revealed that a relationship existed
between B-P and chlorophyll a..
This relationship was found by comparing the percent dif-
ference between expected chlorophyll a and observed chlorophyll
a^ under phosphorus limiting conditions. Working on the assump-
tion that embayment maximum algal standing crops were not meas-
ured all of the time in 1983 because of low sampling frequency
(once/ month), we used the AGPT to assist us in our analysis of
the data. This approach was based on the premise that potential
or expected chlorophyll a represents the maximum standing crop
that could be realized under optimum growing conditions in the
embayment. Therefore, field measurements near the expected
chlorophyll a concentrations would represent collections of phyt
plankton standing crop at or near maximum growth only limited by
phosphorus availability. With this premise, we compared sample
collection data differences between expected and observed chloro
phyll a standing crop concentrations (Appendix I). At the 25%
and 50% difference level, there appeared to be a relationship
between B-P and chlorophyll a, but the data set was too small,
in our opinion, to use with confidence (Appendix I). At the 75%
difference level, we were able to develop a relationship show-
ing the dependence of chlorophyll a upon B-P (Table 6.9 and Fig-
ure 6.3) for the embayment monitoring data. This cause and ef-
fect relationship is expressed by the following equation:
ug/L Chi. a ~ Bioavailable Phosphorus in ug/L (1.10) + 4.84
-------
Applying this equation to the PFR model results (Table 6.8), we
developed a range of chlorophyll a concentrations expected under
various scenarios (Table 6.10). Projections range from a low
of 14.7 ug chlorophyll a/L in embayment segment 4 to a high of
31.2 ug chlorophyll a/L in embayment segment 1. This range is
well within the range of maximum values observed in 1983 (Table
5.3), and it is generally comparable to the average maximum
chlorophyll £ concentrations (Table 5.3) found in 1983, Great-
est chlorophyll a concentrations were associated with scenarios
of reduced retention time because of the thermocline and in-
creased WWTP loadings. From segments 1 through 4 under worst
case conditions, maximum chlorophyll £ concentrations ranged
from 20.2 ug/L to 44.4 ug/L (Table 6.10).
7. TROPHIC STATE
In order to compare the effects of increasing phosphorus
loading and attendant water column concentrations upon trophic
status, the Carlson (Carlson, 1977) Trophic State Index (TSI)
was used. This index uses a univariate approach to trophic
classification. It has several advantages over multivariate
approaches because of its simplicity, small data requirement,
numerical ranking from 0-100 according to an increasing trophic
continuum and its reliance on three of the most common and "best"
understood trophic indicators; corrected chlorophyll a, T-P and
Secchi disc (SD) transparency. The three variables and their
associated TSI's are not considered as the basis of a definition
of trophic state, but only as indicators of a more broadly de-
fined concept (Carlson, 1977). For these reasons, Carlson's
index has been used widely for the purposes of trophic state
classification. Carlson recommended corrected chlorophyll a. as
the variable of choice, and under most circumstances chloro-
phyll a is the variable of interest to the public and managers
who are concerned with potential nuisance blooms (standing
crops) of algae. However, faulty decisions do occur when
managers rely heavily on chlorophyll £ values derived from
waters affected by non-algal turbidity or color. If waters are
turbid or colored, then an index based on field chlorophyll a
will not measure potential trophic condition. Likewise, SD ~~
transparency can be misinterpreted in southern piedmont reser-
voirs containing large amounts of non-algal particulate matter
from sediment loading. Many managers rely on T-P concentrations,
but "accurate" index values from T-P depend on the assumption
that algal biomass is a function of the concentrations of all
forms of phosphorus present in the waterbody. The 18-Mile
Creek data analysis of T-P and and chlorophyll a indicates this
function does not exist (Appendix I). In our opinion, a better
index of trophic condition is one based on B-P or algal growth
potential as expressed by chlorophyll a. If one assumes that
T-P is equivalent to B-P, then one couTd easily substitute the
-23-
-------
B-P values into the Carlson TSI-pp equation. We opted to use
the TSIchl equation for purposes of discussion and comparison.
TSIchl was calculated from the following equation derived
by Carlson (1977 ) :
TSIchl = 10 (6 - 2'Q4 \n268 ^ Chl' )
Table 7.1 and Figure 7.1 present the conversion of TSI
values derived from the chlorophyll a concentrations of Table
6.10. Maximum TSI calculated for different loading scenarios
ranged from 61 in segment 4 under 1983 conditions to 68 in
section 1 under 100% WWTP design loading. Although all of the
TSI values are relatively high and indicative of eutrophic con-
ditions as defined by DHEC (Kimsey, ejt slL. , 1982), they still
were less than 70 which, in our opinion, is a management action
level. DHEC (Kimsey, £t aJL. , 1982), in classifying 40 of their
major publicly owned reservoirs, found that most were eutrophic
and ranked basically the same using several different indexing
methods. TSIchl calculated for the 40 lakes ranged from 22 at
Robinson Reservoir to 66 at Greenwood Reservoir. Hartwell Reser-
voir had a TSIchl 59. DHEC has a trend monitoring station
(CL-024) located at Station A-2 (segment 1). An average chloro-
phyll a concentration of 23.35 ug/L was reported for this station
in 1980-1981. This concentration is equivalent to a TSIchl of
61 which was less than the 64 calculated for segment 1 (Stations
A-l to A-2) during our 1983 study (Table 6.7) indicating that
the TSIchl is advancing as WWTP loadings increase. The nuisance
bloom complaint on April 14, 1981, that originally involved EPA
into the study, was followed up by DHEC (Appendix A). The com-
plaint focused on segment 4 where a Chlamydomonas bloom equiva-
lent to a standing crop of 29.93 ug/L of chlorophyll a was re-
ported (Appendix A). This concentration equates to a TSIchl of
64. Chlorophyll a concentrations of 30 ug/L would not be unusual
in southern piedmont waters during the spring, yet the nonpied-
mont public may have a different perception of satisfactory
water quality than local long-time residents.
-24-
-------
REFERENCES
Baker, D. B. 1983. Fluvial transport and processing of
sediments and nutrient in large agricultural river basins.
U.S.E.P.A., Environmental Research Laboratory, Athens, GA
30613.
Carlson, R. E. 1977. A trophic state index for embayments.
Limnology and Oceanography 22(2): 361-369.
EPA. 1980. Region IV Engineering Support Branch SOP and OA
Manual. Environmental Services Division. Athens, GA 30613.
EPA. 1981. Region IV Laboratory Services Branch SOP and OA
Manual, Environmental Services Division, Athens, GA 30613.
EPA. 1982a. Region IV Environmental Biology Section SOP and
QA Manual. Environmental Services Division, Athens, GA
30613.
EPA. 1982b. Water quality assessment: A screening procedure
for toxic and conventional pollutants - Part 2. EPA-600/
6-82-004b, Environmental Research Laboratory, Athens, GA
30613.
Herren, E. C. 1979. Soil survey of Anderson County, South
Carolina. USDA, SCS, Columbia, SC.
Higgins, H. and R. Kim. 1980. Phosphorus models and relationships
for TVA reservoirs. Water Quality Branch, Division of Water
Resources, TVA, Chattanooga, TN 37401.
Kimsey, C. D., A. C. Boozer, J. N. Knox, L. E. Turner, K. K.
Cain, and G. W. Long. 1982. South Carolina clean lakes
classification survey. Technical Report No. 019-82. S.C.
Department of Health and Environmental Control, 2600 Bull
Street, Columbia, SC 29201.
McCoy, W. 1963. Basic research and characterization of Eighteen
Mile Creek. Department of Water Resources Engineering,
Clemson University, Clemson, SC.
Mancini, J. L., G. C. Kaufman, P. A. Mangarella, and E. D.
Driscoll, 1983. Technical guidance manual for performing
waste load allocations — Book IV, Embayments and Impoundments
— Chapter 2 Eutrophication. U.S.E.P.A., Office of Water
Regulations and Standards, Monitoring and Data Support
Division, Monitoring Branch, 401 M Street, S.W., Washington,
D.C. 20460.
-25-
-------
Miller, W. E. , J. C. Greene, and T. Shiroyama. 1978. The
Selenastrum capricornutum Printz algal assay bottle test -
experimental design, application, and data interpretation
protocol. EPA-600/9-78-018. USEPA, Corvallis, OR 97330.
Placke, Janice. 1983. Trophic status evaluation of TVA
reservoirs. TVA, Chattanooga, TN 37401.
Reckhow, K. H. and S. C. Chapra. 1983. Engineering approaches
for embayment management. Volume 1: Data analysis and
empirical modeling. Butterworth Publishers, Ann Arbor
Science Book, Ann Arbor, MI.
Rast, W. and G. F. Lee. 1978. Summary analysis of the North
American (U.S. Portion) OECD eutrophication project: Nutrient
loading — embayment response relationships and trophic
state indices. EPA 600/3-78-0008. Corvallis, OR 97330.
Ruttner, F. 1963. Fundamentals of Limnology. University of
Toronto Press, Toronto, Canada.
USDI. 1975, Water measurement manual. U.S. Department of the
Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Denver Colorado. Available
through the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government
Printing Office, Washington, DC. 20402
Vollenweider, R. A. 1976. Advances in defining critical
loading levels for phosphorus in embayment eutrophication.
Mem. Inst. Ital. Idrobid., 33:53-83.
-26-
-------
Table 5.1. Stage Level In Feet Above Mean Sea Level (msl),
18-Mile Creek Embayment, Hartwell Reservoir, S. C., 1983
Month/Day
msl in ft
2/24
659.2
3/9
659.4
3/22
660.9
3/24
661.0
4/12
663.0
4/20
662.7
4/25
662.2
5/17
661. 2
5/24
662. 6
5/31
662.9
6/1
662.8
6/21
661.5
7/7
660.4
7/19
660.5
8/11
658.3
8/15
657.8
9/19
655.4
11/15
656.5
11/17
656.7
-------
Table 5.2 Euphotic Zone Depth and Secchi Disc
Transparency Depth, 18-Mile Creek ESabayment, Hartwell Reservoir, S.C., 1983
Date
A-
E1
•1
T2
A-2
E
T
A-3
E
Stations
A-4
T E T
A-5
E
T
2/24
1.3
0.3
1.3
0.3
1.3
0.3
3.2 1.0
4.6
1.5
3/22
2.4
0.5
3.6
1.3
5.0
1.8
11.5 4.2
12.9
4.4
4/12
2.4
0.8
2.2
0.7
2.2
0.7
3.0 1.0
2.6
0.8
5/17
3.0
1.0
6.0
2.6
3.9
10.0
13.5 6.2
16.8
6.2
6/21
2.0
2.6
12.0
4.8
14.0
9.2
15.5 9.8
17.0
9.8
7/19
6.0
1.8
14.0
4.3
16.5
4.9
17.0 9.8
23.5
10.2
8/15
5.5
2.5
9.5
3.1
13.0
3.0
19.0 4.6
33.0
5.9
9/19
2.0
1.3
9.0
3.3
18.0
4.6
19.0 4.8
27.0
5.2
Range
1.3-6.0
0.3-2.6
1.3-14.0
0.3-4.8
1.3-18.0
0
•
1
h-
O
•
o
3.0-19.0 1.0-9.8
2.6-33.0 0
.8-10.2
*E = Euphotic zone depth in ft (1% light transmission depth)
2t = Transparency depth in ft
-------
Table 5.3. Vertical Profile Maximum Chlorophyll a. in ug/L,
18-Mile Creek. Embayment, Hartwell Reservoir, S.C., 1983
STATIONS
Date
A—1
A-2
A-3
A—4
A-5
X
Range
2/24
11.93
10.97
10.32
18.38
8.60
12.04
8.60-18.38
3/22
11.87
14.51
12.64
25.80
18.38
16.64
11.87-25.80
4/12
5.64
7.73
11.82
10.68
6.27
8.43
5.64-11.82
5/17
86.43
45.15
18.06
8.71
12.26
34.12
8.71-86.43
6/21
18.71
15.48
13.55
17.74
9.80
15.06
9.80-18.70
7/19
53.54
17.42
11.93
13.55
14.84
22.26
11.93-53.54
8/15
40.32
24.38
18.06
12.26
9.68
20.94
9.68-40.32
9/19
—
26.77
24.19
23.87
14.84
22.42
14.84-26.17
X
32.63
20.30
15.07
16.37
11.83
19.24
Range
5.64-86.43
7.73-45.15
10.32-24.19
8.71-25.80
6.27-18.38
-------
Table 5.4. Horizontal Distribution of Chlorophyll a_ in u/gL,
at the One-Foot Depth, 18-Mile Creek Embayment, Hartwell Reservoir, S.C., August 8, 1983
Date
Station
Tran-
sect
A
B
C
D
Transect Point
E F G
H
Mean
S.D.
%
C.V.
08/08/83
1A 0
45.80
36.77
30.32
31.61
35.48
43.22 44.51
33.54
37.66
6.06
16.09
08/08/83
1A 1
21.29
33.54
32.90
36.77
31.13
6.77
21.76
08/08/83
1A 2
18.06
17.74
19.67
16.45
17.98
1.32
7.37
08/08/83
1A 3
23.22
19.35
19.03
21.93
21.29
10.97
19.30
4.38
22.67
08/08/83
1A 4
14.19
17.74
19.03
15.80
16.69
2.13
12.77
08/08/83
2A 0
11.67
12.26
12.45
14.53
15.80
14.19
13.48
1.60
11.87
08/08/83
2A 1
10.96
11.14
9.68
9.40
10.30
0.88
8.57
08/08/83
2A 2
11.43
13.48
10.55
10.32
11.44
1.44
12.57
08/08/83
3A 0
9.68
9.68
7.74
12.26
11.61
10.19
1.79
17.56
08/08/83
3A 1
8.38
10.32
14.19
7.74
10.16
2.90
28.58
08/08/83
3A 2
9.03
10.96
8.38
10.96
9.83
1.33
13.51
08/08/83
4A 0
8.58
7.55
7.42
7.74
5.29 4.52
8.00
7.01
1.51
21.46
08/08/83
4A 1
7.74
7.74
8.38
5.80
7.42
1.12
15.08
08/08/83
4A 2
7.74
5.80
6.45
6.45
6.61
0.81
12.30
08/08/83
5A 0
6.51
6.84
7.74
7.03
5.55
7.35
6.84
0.76
11.10
08/08/83
5A 1
7.42
7.74
7.42
5.16
6.93
1.19
17.20
08/08/83
5A 2
5.93
6.77
5.48
5.16
5.84
0.70
11.98
Overall Statistics 14.35 10.12 70.54
^S.D. = Standard Deviation
^C.V. = Coefficient of Variation
-------
Table 5.5. Summary of Pendleton-Clemson WWTP and
18-Mile Creek Water Quality Data,
Hartwell Reservoir, S.C., 1983.
Station Flow T-P T-P B-P B-P
(cfs) (mg/L) (lb/d) (mg/L) (lb/d)
EC-1 91.4 0.178 82.4 0.72 43.3
(37-211) (0.09-0.77) (30-821) (0.007-0.774) (3-327)
Station Flow T-P T-P B-P B-P
(mgd) (mg/L) (lb/d) (mg/L) (lb/d) •
CP-001 0.55 6.1 28.1 3.14 12.38
(0.3-1.35) (1-30) (1-270) (0.21-14.93) (
-------
Table 5.6. Eighteen Mile Creek Point Source Discharges,
Hartwell Reservoir, S.C., August 9-11, 1983.
Point Source
Day
Flow
MGD
nh3-
Cone.
mg/L
-N
Load
lb/d
Total
Cone.
mg/L
P
Load
lb/d
Liberty Lusk
1
0.073
11.00
6.70
8.8
5.36
2
0.073
14.80
9.01
8.4
5.12
Liberty Owens
1
0.0437
21.50
7.84
7.8
2.84
2
0.0338
21.00
5.92
6.3
1.78
Whispering Pines
1
0.0427
4.35
1.55
7.9
2.81
2
0.0388
4.25
1.37
7.7
2.49
Dan River
1
0.249
0.62
1.28
2.6
5.40
2
0.240
0.65
1.30
2.7
5.40
Easley Lagoon 001
1
0.098
9.00
7.36
8.5
6.95
2
0.089
7.60
5.64
8.6
6.38
Easley Lagoon 002
1
0.12
7.00
7.00
7.9
7.90
2
0.11
5.40
4.95
7.8
7.16
Town of Central
1
0.197
0.20
0.33
2.7
4.44
2
0.194
0.24
0.39
3.7
5.99
Pendleton Finishing
1
2.20
0.07
1.28
0.8
14.7
2
2.20
0.09
1.65
0.8
14.7
Pendleton-Clemson WWTP
1
0.394
21.00
69.00
14.0
46.0
2
0.390
19.00
61.80
11.0
35.8
Point Source Totals
1
3.42
102.30
96.5
2
3.37
92.00
84.8
Eighteen Mile Ck (EC-1)
1
24.00
0.69
138.10
0.6
120.1
2
23.87
0.98
195.10
0.5
99.5
-------
Table 5.7. Water Quality Monitoring Data for Pendleton-Clerason WWTP
and Creek Station EC-1, Hartwell Reservoir, S.C., March 1983.
Location: WQ Station (EC-1)
Stage
Flow
T-P
T-P
B-P
B-P
TSS
TSS
Date
Time
Time
(ft.)
(cfs)
(mq/L)
(lb/d)
(mg/L)
(lb/d)
(mq/L)
(lb/d)
3/19-20
1200-0600
0
0.86
65.10
0.11
39
0.041
14
43
15088
3/20
1200
6
0.81
61.60
0.09
30
0.032
11
160
53124
3/20
1800
12
0.82
62.30
0.10
34
0.029
10
210
70517
3/20
2400
18
1.38
115.30
0.19
118
0.048
30
210
130508
3/21
0600
24
1.75
173.20
0.50
467
0.035
33
390
364084
3/21
1200
30
1.80
183.10
0.35
345
—
0
350
345418
3/21
1800
36
1.48
128.70
0.31
215
—
0
210
145676
3/21
2400
42
1.26
101.10
0.20
109
0.016
9
200
108986
3/22
0600
48
1.16
90.60
0.15
73
0.063
31
78
38090
3/22
1200
54
1.10
84.80
0.13
59
0.073
33
130
59419
3/22
1800
60
1.07
82.00
0.14
62
0.063
28
280
123754
3/22
2400
66
1.03
78.50
0.12
51
0.056
24
120
50774
3/23-24
0600-0600
72
0.%
72.70
0.11
43
0.033
13
54
21160
Location:
Fendleton-Clemson WWTP
(CP-001)
Flow
% T-P
T-P
T-P
B-P
B-P
TSS
TSS
Date
Time
Time
(mqd)
(lb/d)
(mq/L)
(lb/d)
(mg/L)
(lb/d)
(mg/L)
(lb/d)
3/19-20
1140-0540
0
0.39
36
4.40
14
3.93
13
4
13
3/20
1140
6
0.31
43
5.20
13
—
0
5
13
3/20
1740
12
0.42
47
4.70
16
—
0
3
11
3/20
2340
18
0.65
19
4.30
23
2.46
13
5
27
3/21
0540
24
1.35
58
24.00
270
—
0
1100
12385
3/21
1740
36
0.65
14
5.70
31
—
0
98
531
3/21
2340
42
0.67
23
4.50
25
3.02
17
37
207
3/22
0540
48
0.25
11
3.60
8
—
0
6
13
3/22
1140
54
0.60
25
2.90
!l5
2.36
12
NA
0
3/22
1740
60
0.52
13
1.80
8
—
0
NA
0
3/22
2340
66
0.57
20
2.00
10
3.1
15
NA
0
3/23-24
2400-2400
72
0.43
19
2.30
8
3.27
12
6
22
-------
Table 5.8. Dye Tracer Results, 18-Mile Creek, Hartwell Reservoir, S.C., 1983
Station
Flow
(cfs)
T-P
(mg/L)
High Flow Study
Low Flow Study
B-P
(mg/L)
TSS
(mg/L)
Elapsed
Time (hr)
Distance
(miles)
Flow
(cfs)
T-P
(mg/L)
B-P
(mg/L)
TSS
(mg/L)
Elapsed
Time (hr)
EC-1 ,,
86.7
0.21
0.149
96
—
0
58
0.20
0.073
20
—
EC-2 —
88.6
0.27
0.231
85
0.33
0.45
58
0.27
0.078
37
0.40
EC-3
90.6
0.28
0.225
110
0.75
0.93
58
0.24
0.091
41
0.88
EC-4
—
—
—
—
1.71
58
0.20
0.122
41
1.61
EC-5
94.6
0.31
0.224
100
2.02
2.16
58
*0.18
0.142
37
2.50
EC-6
97.8
0.30
0.216
110
2.55
2.42
58
0.14
0.086
15
5.31
EC—7
98.9
0.34
0.216
130
2.85
2.83
58
0.11
0.119
17
7.65
EC-8
103.3
*0.36
0.239
120
3.21
3.21
58
—»
™
——*
Al.l
—
0.17
0.128
15
7.12
3.42
58
——
A1.2
__
3.46
58
00
o
•
0.007
11
22.1
A2.5
—
0.07
0.042
10
24.9
4.07
58
—
——
1/ Significant tributary influence between EC-1 and EC-2
* Pool interface
-------
Table 6.1. Basic Parameters and Phosphorus Predictions
18-Mile Creek Erabayment, Hartwell Reservoir, S.C.
for
Basic Embayment Parameters
Symbol Units Parameter
z
m
Mean Depth
ft
A
ac
Surface Area
ha
ft2
m2
V
Ac-ft
Volume
ft3
m3
d
Detention Time
Tw
yr
qS
m/yr
Areal Water Loading
T-P
ug/L
Input T-P Concentration
B-P
ug/L
Input B-P Concentration
Based on Modified Vollenweider
T-P lb/d Average T-P Loading (unadjusted)
Average T-P Loading (adjusted)
B-P lb/d Average B-P Loading (adjusted)
Lc gm T-P/m^/yr Areal T-P Loading
gm B-P/m^/yr Areal B-P Loading
T-P ug/L Arm Steady State T-P Concentration
B-P ug/L Arm Steady State B-P Concentration
a yr~l T-P Sedimentation Coefficient
o yr-^ B-P Sedimentation Coefficient
v8 m/yr Apparant Settling Velocity
Value
5.8
19.0
180
72.9
7.8 x 106
7.3 x 105
3450
1.5 x 108
4.3 x 106
18.6
0.051
112
118
67
82.4
71.5
33.8
16.3
7.7
43
9
46.5
126
270
-------
Table 6.1 (Continued)
Based on Plug Flow Model (PFM)
T-P
yr
°2
T-P
yr
03
T-P
yr
0«»
H
1
"nd
yr
-1
B-P yr"
o2 B-P yr"
cr3 B-P yr'
B-P yr"
628 MSL T,
639 MSL T.
T-P Phosphorus Sedimentation Coefficient
Segment 1
Phosphorus Sedimentation Coefficient
Segment 2
Phosphorus Sedimentation Coefficient
Segment 3
Phosphorus Sedimentation Coefficient
Segment 4
B-P Phosphorus Sedimentation Coefficient
Segment 1
Phosphorus Sedimentation Coefficient
Segment 2
Phosphorus Sedimentation Coefficient
Segment 3
Phosphorus Sedimentation Coefficient
Segment 4
Ti
yr~l
Segment
1
Detention Time
with
Thermocline at
628 ft MSL
T2'
yr~J-
2
T3
yr-*
3
?«~
yr"1
4
T1
yr
Segment
1
Detention Time
with
Thermocline at
639 ft MSL
yr-J
2
T3
yr~]
3
yr -*•
4
107
35
43
0
194
56
17
35
.00530
.00470
.00396
.00480
.00530
.00340
.00220
.00137
-------
Table 6.2 Weighted Average Phosphorus Loadings,
18-Mile Creek, Hartwell Reservoir, S.C., 1983
T-P Q Pool Level
Event Days (lb/d) (cfs) (ft msl)
March 19-24
6
96.7
99.9
661
April 14-20
6
47.8
98.6
663
April 23-24
2
68.4
101.6
662
May 13-18
6
63.0
93.5
661
May 18-23
6
113.4
107.4
661
June 30-July 6
7
95.4
57.0
663
August 9-11
2
109.9
37.2
658
November 14-15
1
98.0
87.0
656
Weighted Average
82.4
91.4
661
^Weighted Average * e days x T-P (lb/d)
e days
^Weighted Average = 1. 4a,ys x Q (c^s)
e days
-------
Table 6.3 Recorded Rainfall at Pendleton-Clemson WWTP,
18-Mile Creek, Hartwell Reservoir, S.C., 1983
January
Ra i n f a 11
February
Rainfall
March
Rainfal1
( in)
( in)
( in)
02/02/83
1.36
03/01/83
0 . 17
f) 1/02/83
1.05
02/06/83
0.45
03/06/83
1. 48
01/O3/R3
0 . 25
02/07/83
0.58
03/08/83
0.21
01/04/83
0.25
02/10/83
0.02
03/18/83
0 .09
01/10/83
0.09
02/11/83
0.49
03/19/83
0 . 47
01/11/83
0 . 17
02/14/83
0.41
03/22/83
1. 16
01/12/83
0.19
02/15/83
0.27
03/25/83
0 . 18
01/28/83
0.06
02/23/83
2.00
03/26/83
0.55
01/31/83
0.12
02/25/83
0.02
03/27/83
1. 50
03/28/83
0 .05
03/31/83
0.42
ADril
Rainfall
May
Rainfall
June
Rainfall
( in)
( in)
( in)
04/02/83
0.61
05/04/83
0 .34
06/02/83
0 .11
04/03/83
0.06
05/08/83
0.10
06/03/83
0.02
04/06/83
0.76
05/14/83
1.67
06/05/83
0 .40
04/07/83
0.04
05/16/83
0.48
06/07/83
0.02
04/08/83
0.06
05/17/83
0.89
06/08/83
0 .32
04/09/83
0.98
05/19/83
0.07
06/17/83
0.34
04/10/83
0.46
05/20/83
0.83
06/18/83
0 .06
04/15/83
0.20
05/21/83
0.43
06/20/83
0.03
04/18/83
0.04
05/22/83
0.05
06/28/83
0.04
04/19/83
0 .16
05/23/83
0.28
06/29/83
0.03
04/22/83
0.04
04/23/83
0 .12
04/24/83
0.52
July
Rainfal1
August
Rainfal1
September
Rainfal1
( in)
( in)
( in)
07/01/83
0.88
08/02/83
0.18
09/01/83
0.12
07/06/83
0.03
08/06/83
0.13
09/02/83
0.52
07/12/83
0.04
08/08/83
0.08
09/03/83
0.78
07/26/83
0.71
08/12/83
0.50
09/04/83
0.52
08/25/83
0 .67
09/05/83
0.02
08/26/83
0.04
09/12/83
0.05
09/13/83
0 .19
09/20/83
0.03
09/21/83
0 .45
09/22/83
0 . 29
October
Rainfall
November
Rainfall
December
Rainfall
( in)
( in)
( in)
10/12/83
1.75
11/04/83
0.50
12/02/83
1.60
10/13/83
o.no
11/05/83
0 .18
12/03/83
1.83
10/14/83
0.32
11/10/83
0.09
12/06/83
2.10
10/23/83
0.79
11/11/83
0.09
12/12/83
1.80
10/24/83
0.33
11/15/83
1.25
12/14/83
0 .06
11/16/83
0.44
12/15/83
0.13
11/20/83
0.25
12/22/83
0.93
11/21/83
0.26
12/23/83
0.30
12/28/83
0 .87
12/29/83
0.34
-------
Table 6.4. Phosphorus Concentration Predictions
Based on Vollenveider Loading Model, 18—Mile Creek Embayment,
Hartwell Reservoir, S.C., 1983
_ L Predicted ^ Predicted
Pool o Area Volume z T-P c T-P* B-P c B-P
(ft) (yr-1) (Ac) (Ac-ft) (m) (lb/d) (gin T-P/m2/yr) (ug/L) (Ib/d) (gm B-P/m2/yr) (ug/L)
Total Phosphorus
Model Adjusted for 661 46.5 180 3450 5.8 71.5 16.3 43
Sampling and
Transport
Bioavailable Phos-
phorus Model Ad-
justed for Sampling
and Transport
661
126
180 3450 5.8
33.8
7.7
'Calculated using the formula: T-P (mg/L) =
- (1/T +a)
z w
-------
Table 6.5 Average Phosphorus Concentrations,
18-Mile Creek Embayment,
Hartwell Reservoir, S.C., 1983
LAKE STATION AVERAGE T-P AVERAGE B-P
( ug/L) ( ug/L)
A— 1
118
67
A-2
67
24
A-3
56
18
A-4
35
15
A-5
35
9
Table 6.6. Segment Area-Volume Data, 18-Mile Creek Embayment,
Hartwell Reservoir, S.C., 1983
SECTION
SEGMENT
SEGMENT VOLUME
(Ac-ft)
AREA
VOLUME
(Ac )
(Ac-ft)
9.8
27.6
8.6
30.2
1.7
12.4
2.6
15.4
8.5
76.8
18.9
186.2
7.5
73.4
9.0
103.1
3.2
46.1
2.3
30.7
5.8
85.9
6.9
105.6
11.1
296.4
10.1
323.9
15.3
448. 5
9.7
279.6
9.1
223.6
12.8
414.5
5.8
203.0
3.0
112.1
161.7
3095.0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
TOTAL
348.6
339. 2
725.9
951.7
-------
Table 6.7. Total Phosphorus Embayment Concentration Predictions Based on Plug Flow Loading Model,
18-Mile Creek Embayment, Hartwell Reservoir, S.C.
o Observed Epilimnion Epilimnion WWTP at 75% Design WWTP at 100% Design
Segment Station (yr~^)* T-P at 628 rasl at 639 msl Flow T-P (ug/L) Flow T-P (ug/L)
(ug/L) T-P (ug/L) T-P (ug/L) Embayment 628 msl 639 msl Embayment 628 msl 639 msl
Input
A-l
—
118
118
118
138
138
138
155
155
155
1
A-2
107
67
67
67
78
78
78
88
88
88
2
A-3
35
56
57
59
65
66
69
73
75
78
3
A-4
43
35
48
54
41
56
63
46
63
71
4
A-5
0
35
48
54
41
56
63
46
63
71
*Based on observed T-P data from Hartwell Reservoir, 18-Mile Creek Area.
Table 6.8. Bioavailable Phosphorus Embayment Concentration Predictions Based on Plug Flow Loading Model,
18-Mile Creek Embayment, Hartwell Reservoir, S.C., 1983.
Segment Station (yr-*)*
Observed Epilimnion Epilimnion WWTP at 75% Design
B-P at 628 rasl at 639 msl Flow B-P (ug/L)
(ug/L) B-P (ug/L) B-P (ug/L) Embayment 628 msl 639 msl
WWTP at 100% Design
Flow B-P (ug/L)
Embayment 628 msl 639 msl
ft
A-l
—
67
67
67
84
84
84
100
100
100
1
A-2
194
24
24
24
30
30
30
36
36
36
2
A-3
56
18
18
20
23
23
25
27
28
30
3
A-4
17
15
17
19
19
22
24
22
26
29
4
A-5
35
9
14
18
11
19
23
14
22
28
*Based on observed B-P data from Hartwell Reservoir, 18-Mile Creek Area.
-------
Table 6.9. Regression Analysis of Bioavailable Phosphorus
and Chlorophyll _a, 18-Mile Creek Embayment,
Hartwell Reservoir, S.C., 1983
Source
Model
Error
Corrected Total
R-Square
0.766008
Source
BP
Parameter
Intercept
BP
DF
1
10
11
C.V.
21.5127
DF
1
Estimate
4.83507898
1.09934588
SUM OF SQUARES
169.26683526
51.70576474
220.97260000
ROOT MSE
2.27389016
TYPE I SS
169.26683526
T FOR HO:
PARAMETERS
4.04
5.72
MEAN SQUARE
169.26683526
5.17057647
CHLA_OBS MEAN
10.57000000
F VALUE PR > F
32.74 0.0002
PR > !/T!
0.0024
0.0002
F VALUE
32.74
PR > F
0.0002
ST ERROR OF
ESTIMATE
1.19814356
0.19214005
-------
Table 6.10. Range of Average Embayment Chlorophyll a
Concentrations (ug/L) Under Different Loading3 Conditions,
18-Mile Creek Embayment, Hartwell Reservoir, S.C.
WWTP at WWTP at
Segments 1983 Loading 75% Design 100% Design
1 31.2 37.8 44.4
2 24.6-26.8 30.1-32.3 34.5-37.8
3 21.3-25.7 25.7-31.2 29.0-36.7
4 14.7-24.6 16.9-30.1 20.2-35.6
Calculations of corrected chlorophyll a derived from bioavailable
phosphorus concentrations of Table 6.7.
-------
Table 7.1. Maximum Embayment TSI Under Different Loading
Conditions, 18-Mile Creek Embayment, Hartwell Reservoir, S.C.
WWTP at WWTP at
Segments
1983
75% Design
100% Design
1
64
66
68
2
63
65
66
3
62
64
66
4
61
64
66
Ave
62
65
66
-------
-------
FIGURE 3.1
-------
FIGURE 3.2
-------
Figure 4.1
Area-Volume Curve, 18-Mile Creek Embayment
Hartwell Reservoir, South Carolina, 1983
Area (10 acres)
12 18 24
Volume (100 acre-feet)
-------
Figure 4.2
Stage - Discharge Curve, 18-Mile Creek at EC-1
Hartwell Reservoir, South Carolina, 1983
Discharge (CFS)
-------
Figure 5.1
Depth Profile Curves of Temperature
18 Mile Creek Embayment, Hartwell Reservoir, South Carolina, 1983
Station A—1
670-
•w
650-
C
JO
630-
o
>
9
UJ
610-
590-
Temperature (°C)
12 16 20 24 28 32
1 * 1 1 ¦ ¦ 1 1 ¦ ¦ ' 1 ¦ 1 ' 1 ¦ ¦ ¦ 1 ¦ 1 ¦ 1
, J«k
670-
s
W
650-
c
£
630-
o
>
•
610-
Ui
590-J
February
Temperature (*C)
12 IS 20 24 28 32
¦ ¦ 1 1 1 ¦ ¦ 1 ¦ ¦ ¦ 1 * 1 ¦ 1 ¦ ¦ ¦ 1 1 1 1 1
J?sj-
670
X-N
«:
w
650
e
o
=§
630
S
610
Ui
990
670
«*»
w
690
C
o
5:
630
0
1
UJ
610
990
March
Temperature (*C)
12 16 20 24 28 32
¦ ' ¦ 1 ¦ ¦ ¦ 1 1 ¦ ¦ 1 1 1 1 1 1 * ¦ 1 ¦
April
Temperature (*C)
12 16 20 24 28 32
¦ 1 1 ' * 1 1 ¦ ¦ 1 ¦ 1 1 1 1 1 ' 1 ¦ ¦ ¦ 1
J&k
May
Temperature (*C)
8 12 16 20 24 28 32
gyp I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
£ 650-
c :
2. 630-
"5
• 610-
Ul
590-J
7T
J*!,
June
Temperature (*C)
12 16 20 24 28 32
670-
S 650:
J 630-
"5
1 610-
¦ ' 1 1 ¦ ¦ 1 1 1 ' 1 ¦ ¦ ¦ 1 ¦ ¦ ' 1
-Jh
590-J July
Temperature (*C)
11 12 16 20 24 28 32
1 1 1 ' 1 1 1 ' 1 1 1 1 ' ' ¦ 1 ¦ ¦ ¦ 1 ¦ ' • 1
670
£
650
C
O
630
O
>
•
610
590
670
%
v-o
650'
e
0
630-
0
>
e
a
610-
590-
August
Temperature (*C)
II 1,2 16 20 24 28 32
I i i i I i i i I i i i I i i i I i i i I
_ J«k
September
-------
Figure 5.2
Depth Profile Curves of Temperature
18 Mile Creek Embayment, Hartwell Reservoir, South Carolina, 1983
Station A-2
670
*»-
650
C
JO
630
o
>
®
610
u
590
Temperature ("C)
12 18. 20 24 2B 32
» ' 1 ' ' ' 1 * ' 1 1 1 1 ' ' 1 ' » 1 ' ' ' 1
"X
, JMk
February
Temperature (*C)
a
>
670-
Temperature (*C)
12 1« 20 24 28 32
' 11 1 1 11 1 1 1 11 ¦ 1 1 1 1 ¦ ¦ 1 1
S 650H
c
.g 630-
I 61 OH
14
590-
•70
£j»50
I «30-
|
990J
April
Temperature (*C)
12 1i 20 24 U 52
... 11.. i. i»i.,. i... i. 11 i
7
May
e
o
32
a
>
in
•70
•SO
630
610-1
590
Temperature (*C)
12 1« 20 24 28 32
1 1 1 ¦ ¦ 1 ¦ ¦ ¦ 1 ¦ ¦ ¦ 1 ¦ ¦ ¦ 1 ¦ ¦ ¦ 1
7
June
Temperature (*C)
670-
650-
1 1 1 1 ¦ « « 1 ¦ » 1 1
i
• ¦ * ¦ ¦ ¦ * ¦ ¦ ¦ *
j«k
•70
S650
630-
J 630
O
610-
J >10
Ul
590-
March
590
8 12 16 20 24 28 32
¦ ¦ 1 1 * 1 1 1 ¦ ¦ 1 1 ¦ ' ¦ 1 ¦ 1 1 1 ' 1 1 1
f
•70
§ «50-
•30-
e
o
S
D
•10
590-J
July
Temperature (*C)
12 1« 20 24 28 32
¦ * 1 1 * 1 1 1 ¦ 1 1 1 1 ¦ 1 ¦ ¦ 1 1 ¦ ¦ ¦ 1
,_jji
sj,
•70
3
•50
c
e
•30
D
•10
590
August
Temperature (*C)
12 11 20 24 28 32
111111111111111111111111
pr
JHk
September
-------
Figure 5.3
Depth Profile Curves of Temperature
18 Mile Creek Embayment, Hartwell Reservoir, South Carolina, 1983
Station A-3
Tcmp«ratur« (#C)
12 16 20 24 28 32
o
>
LU
670-
¦ ' ' 1 ¦ 1 ' 1 ¦ ¦ ' 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1
670-
650-
7
S 650~
630-
c ;
o 630-
610-
£ 610-
590-
February
590-
•70
Temp«ratur« (*C)
1,2 16 20 24 28 32
* 1 1 * ¦ ' 1 1 1 ¦ ' ¦ 1 1 1 1 ' ¦ 1 * ¦ ¦ 1
£ 650-
J 630
«~»
a
J fiio
uI
590-
T
,JSL
March
670-
T«mp«rature ('C)
1,2 16 20 24 28 32
i i i I i i i1 11 11 11 11 i i 11 i
S 850-3
e
JZ 630-
|
• 610-
Ul
S90-1
T
April
Tcmptratura (*C)
670-
12 1« 20 24 28 32
i.iI i ¦¦ I ... I . .. I ... I ... i
S 630 H
c
S. 630-
I ^
• 610-^
Ul ;
590-
. JSk
May
T«mp«rature (°C)
12 16 20 24 2. „
* ' ' » 1 1 » 1 ' » j ¦ 1 ' 1 ' 1 ' * ' ' * 1
"Z
MSL
670-
£ 650-
C
£ 630-
"S
• 610-
Q
590-J
June
T«mp«ratur« (®C)
8 12 16 20 24 28 32
. . I I . I ¦ I n . I ¦ I . I . . . I . i ¦ I
7
July
Tvmparature (*C)
670-
1,2 16 20 24 28 32
I I.I I H I I . I I I ... I I ... I
s 650-
J 630-
"S
1 610
ui
590-1
•70-
August
Tampcraturs (°C)
12 16 20 24 28 32
u I, I i i 11 I 111 II 11 1111 i yj
£ 650 H
c
.g 630-
5
• 61 OH
590-I
7
JSJ,
S«pt«mb«r
-------
Figure 5.4
Depth Profile Curves of Temperature
18 Mile Creek Embayment, Hartwell Reservoir, South Carolina, 1983
Station A—A-
670-
Temperature (*C)
8 12 16 20 24 28 32
I.I I I I I t II I f I |, I I I I ,1 ( I.I t f
c
o
35
Q
>
ft
Q
650-
650
610-
390-
$70-
Febnjary
Ttmptrafur# (*C)
B 12 1« 20 24 28 32
¦I I » < I I I I II I I,M< I \
C
1
a
650-
*30-
•10-;
590-
. Jfe
March
Temperature ("C)
11 12 16 20 24 2B 32
t70-j iM J i I I I i I i t J tt I. I.I i b ^l
c
0
1
S
650-
630-
eto
390—
April
Temperature (*C)
•70
§ 650 H
630
#?0-
590-
6 12 1« 20 24 28 32
i l ¦ I . . i I i . . I ¦ , I | ! . i I r ¦ ¦ I
e
?
*
ut
.J*
Temperature (*C)
8 12 16 20 24 28 32
. I j i > l,i i 111, i.i I till
June
Temperature (*C)
8 12 16 20 24 28 32
J7Q. l i l I i M I I III I I i I I
670
S 650H
Temperature ("C)
12 16 20 24 28 32
I I I I I I I I I I I 14.1 1,1,1 i t i.t L.I
I
i
S
630-
610-H
59QJ August
Temperature (*C)
8 12 1 6 20 24 28 32
i .1 i 11 i 111.1 U-Ut i.1.111 t i i i ,1
May
670
&
650
c
©
830
i
610
S90
7
September
-------
Figure 5.5
Depth Profile Curves of Temperature
18 Mile Creek Embayment, Hartweli Reservoir, South Carolina, 1983
Station A—5
670-
«»•
650^
v.**
C
"
JO
630*^
*5
>
c
61
•
610
UJ
590
February
Temperature (*C)
8 12 16 20 24 28 32
* * 1 ¦ ' ¦ 1 ¦ » * 1 1 ¦ ¦ 1 ¦ ¦ ¦ 1 ¦ ¦ 1 1
JSI.
670
£
650
c
o
630
o
5
•
610
UJ
590
670
/-N
650
c
o
630
Q
>
•
Ul
610
590
March
Temperature (°C)
12 16 20 24 28 32
i i i I 11 i .1 i i i I i i i 11 i i I i ^1
April
Temperature (BC)
12 16 20 24 28 32
i l I i i I I i I l .l i i i 1,1 i i I i i i I
. _ _ J®,
Ma/
670
•
650
c
o
630
o
>
JD
Ul
610
590
670
690
c
o
630
o
>
•
Ul
610
590
670
w
650
c
c
630
b
>
•
610
Ul
590
•70
«*•
w
650
C
£
630
o
>
•
610
Ul
590
Temperature (*C)
8 12 16 20 24 28 32
i i I i i i I i .i. i I i i,i I i i i I i i i I
MSL
June
Temperature ("C)
8 12 16 20 24 28 32
Temperature (°C)
8 12 16 20 24 28 32
i i i I i i i I i i i I i i i I i i i I i i i I
August
Temperature (*C)
12 16 20 24 28 32
¦ ¦ ¦ 1 ' 1 1 1 ¦ ¦ ¦ 1 ¦ ¦ ¦ 1 ¦ 1 ¦ 1 ¦ ¦ 1 1
September
-------
Figure 5.6
Longitudinal Depth Profile of Temperature (°C)
18 Mile Creek Embayment, Hartwell Reservoir, South Carolina, March, 1983
0.0
1.0
1.5
River Miles
2.0 2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
670-
660-
650-
640-
c
St 630<
5-
i i i i
A-4
A
A-3
A—2
A—1
WWTP
' *"iJ3
iT«
iii
MSL
itr
ii«
iii
li*
lis
1I4
i*j
lio
12a
tS.7
tis
tit
&
ill
lis
til
ik
¦nr ¦
lit
t<*
lis
iii
.fj
620-
610-
600-
590-»
1tm
t is
it*
tis
lis
-------
Figure 5.7
Longitudinal Depth Profile of Temperature (°C)
18 Mile Creek Embayment, Hartwell Reservoir, South Carolina, July, 1983
River Miles
0 0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
¦ i • ¦ ¦ ¦
¦
¦ lllilll
.A
660-
A—5
A-4
A-3
A-2
A-1
WWTP
3T«
WSL
ill
sb
sit
3i«
ill
ySt
ib
sio
650-
lit
ji»
ds
ii.7
lis
lis
3L3
li.7
til
*ls
ti»
lb
tit
640-
tis
til
ill
tU
if*
if.
lis
lit
630-
1io
til
t*7
it>
tfc
tit
620-
if.
if-t
lit
tii
li7
iti
lio
610-
lij
.i«
lis
ifs
600—
590-1
-------
Figure 5.8
Rainfall, 18 Mile Creek Watershed
Hartwell Reservoir, South Carolina, 1983
I S 15 24
I
ll
« I
lb
J
I
i
I • 15 24| C 15 24 | C 15 241 S 15 24 | 6 15 24 | 6 15 24 | S 15 24 | 6 15 24 | 6 15 24 | « 15 24 | 6 15 24
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Months
-------
Figure 5.9
Depth Profile Curves of Dissolved Oxygen
18 Mile Creek Embayment, Hartweli Reservoir, South Carolina, 1983
Station A-1
DO (mg/L)
0 2 4 6 8 10
C7Q I < ¦ ¦ I ¦ < ¦ ' ¦ ¦ ¦ 1 i ¦ ¦ I ¦ ¦ * 1 ¦ ¦
_ MSL
S 650-
c
.2 630
"5
J 610
590-1
February
DO (mg/L)
670'
650
c
O
630
o
>
•
610
0 2 4 6 8 10
1 * ¦ ' 1 ¦ ¦ 1 1 ¦ ¦ ¦ 1 1 ' ' 1 1 ' ' 1 1 '
590-1
r
JSk
670-
«•»
*
650
e
o
630
o
i
610
Ui
590
March
DO (mg/L)
0 2 4 6 8 10
I>i11111111 i 1111 I iii |^i
April
DO (mg/L)
670
w
650
e
©
630
o
>
m
610
UJ
590
? ? f ? ? 10
¦ 1111 " i 11 " i ¦ ¦ ¦
. J5k
May
DO (mg/L)
S70
650
c
£
630
a
>
o
610
UJ
590
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ 1 ¦ ¦ ¦ 1 ¦ ¦ ' ¦
10
j-L
AiSL
June
670-
650
630
610
990
0 2 4
1 1 ¦ ¦ 1 ¦ ¦ » 1
DO (mg/L)
4 6
11 i 11 '
8 10
II I i I I I i i
670
650
e
0
s:
630
p
>
•
610
UJ
590
July
DO (mg/L)
? % f ? 8 10
1''1 1 " ¦' ¦ i i I i i , I i, 11 i,
_
LM
670
650
630'
610'
590
August
DO (mg/L)
? f 6 8 10
' 1 i i I i i i I i i i I i i i I 11
JSi
S«pt«mb*r
-------
Figure 5.10
Depth Profile Curves of Dissolved Oxygen
18 Mile Creek Embayment, Hartwell Reservoir, South Carolina, 1983
Station A—2
DO (mg/L)
670
»~-
650
c
o
630
o
>
•
610
ui
590
o 2 4 • 8 10
1 » 1 ' ' ' 1 ' 1 ' 1 1 ' 1 ' 1 ' ' 1 1
'J
JSL
870-j
/-N
"
*•
850-
c
-
o
s:
0
630-
5
~
610-
590-
February
DO (mg/L)
2 4 • 8 10
¦1 ¦ ¦ *1 ¦ ¦ ¦1 ¦ ¦ ¦1 ¦ ¦ ¦1 ¦
r
JWk
March
870-
J 830-
~
590-J
DO (mg/L)
2 4 • 8 10
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I.L
if
870-
% 850-
J 630-
|810-
~
590-
April
DO (mg/L)
? ? f ? ? V
¦ ¦ ¦ 1 ¦ ¦ • 1 ¦ ¦ ¦ 1 ' ¦ * 1 ¦ ¦ ' 1 ¦ ¦
_ J«k
May
DO (mg/L)
670-r
«*-
650-
C
o
630-
a
>
•
Ui
610-
590-
~r
USL
June
870'
"P. 850
?
III!
DO (mg/L)
2. BSC-
'S
<1 *10'
~
590-
4 8 8 10
i i I I i i i I i i i I i i i I i i
_ jy?k
July
DO (mg/L)
0 2 4 8 8 10
170 L' ¦ ¦ ¦ 1 ¦ ¦ ¦ 1 ¦ ¦ ¦ 1 ¦ * ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ 1 ¦ ¦
3 850-
J 830
|
590-J August
DO (mg/L)
0 2 4 8 8 10
>70 ,1 i i i I i i i I i i i 1 i i i I l i i I i i
5 «50-:
J 830-
• 810-
ui
590-
JSJ,
September
-------
Figure 5.11
Depth Profile Curves of Dissolved Oxygen
18 Mile Creek Embayment, Hartwell Reservoir, South Carolina, 1983
Station A—3
DO (mg/L)
0 2 4 6 8 10
•70
H-
V-S
650
C
£
630
0
>
•
Ui
610
590
JHL
February
DO (mg/L)
0 2 4 6 8 10
a
DO (mg/L)
<70
•50
C
o
630
a
>
•
ui
810
590
4 6 8 10
i I i i i I i i i I i
"S"
April
DO (mg/L)
•70
S 650
I «30
1 610
bi
590 J
0 2 4 • 8 10
j 1 • ¦ 1 1 1 ¦ 1 ¦ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ¦
_ J«JL
May
DO (mg/L)
ui
670-
650-
630-
610-
590-
0 2 4 8 8 10
* ¦ 1 ¦ ¦ ¦ 1 * ¦ ¦ 1 ¦ ¦ ' 1 ¦ * ¦ 1 ¦ *
U5L
June
DO (mg/L)
670-
K
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
670-j
650-f
(
M 650 ~
630
c
° 630-
«#¦
o
610-
• 610-
UI
590-
March
590 J
0
1 i i i l i i
2 4 6 8 10
1 * ' ' 1 ¦ 1 ¦ 1 ¦ ¦ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
USL
«70q
**%,
*-
w
650-
c
o
•30-
o
I
~
•10-
590-
July
DO (mg/L)
0 2 4 6 8 10
Li ,i i 1 i i i 1 i i i I i i i I i i i I i i
USL
August
DO (mg/L)
c
o
"5
5
~
670-
650-
630-
610-
590-
0 2 4 S 8 10
1 I i i I i i I I i i i I i I i I i i I I i I
. J31
September
-------
Figure 5.12
Depth Profile Curves of Dissolved Oxygen
18 Mile Creek Embayment, Hartwell Reservoir, South Carolina, 1983
Station A—4
J70—ri—u.
£ 650-
c
£ 630-
"5
1 610-
ui
590-
DO (mg/L)
0 2 4 6 8 10
1 i i,i 1 i i i I i i
i i i I i i i I i i
February
DO (mg/L)
0 2 4 6 8 10
670
H-
650-
c
o
630-
a
-
I
UJ
610-
590-
DO (mg/L)
0 2 4 6 8 1.0
|
UJ
•70
S850
J 630
! 610
UJ
990
DO (mg/L)
f... f... f.. .W
. JSJi
May
670
S 650
c
£ 630
O
J 610
UJ
590-J
DO (mg/L)
0 2 4. 6 8 10
1 ¦ ¦ 1 1 ' ' 1 1 ¦ ¦ 1 1 ¦ ¦ ¦ 1 1 ¦ ¦ 1 ¦ •
J1SL
June
DO (mg/L)
Jffk
670
7
S 650
j
c
5 630
jr
o
| 810
March
890
2 4 6 8 10
' 1 ¦ 1 1 ' ' ' ¦ 1 1 1 ¦ 1 1 1 ¦ 1 * 1 ¦
SJ,
r
July
DO (mg/L)
670 q
670
650-
y
S#so
c
630-
® 630
610-j
| «10
990-
April
990
1 2 4 6 8 10
i ¦ i I i i i I i i i I i i i I i i i„l i i
August
DO (mg/L)
•70-
§£ 650-
e
£ 630-
J«*
590J
0 2 4 6 8 10
1 1 ' * 1 1 1 1 ' ¦ 1 1 1 * ¦ * 1 ¦ ¦ ¦ 1 ¦ *
_ J5k
September
-------
Figure 5.13
Depth Profile Curves of Dissolved Oxygen
18 Mile Creek Embayment, Hartwell Reservoir, South Carolina, 1983
Station A-5
DO (mg/L)
DO (mg/L)
670-q
*~-
650-
c
o
630-
o
>
•
Lii
610-
590-
2 4
i I i i i I i
6 8 10
i I i i i 1 i i i I i i
MSt
DO (mg/L)
2 4 6 8
670-
£ 650-
J 630-
a
J 610-
W
590-
DO (mg/L)
2 4 6 8 10
i i I i i i I i i i I i i i I i i i Ll.i
April
DO (mg/L)
670q
s
w
650-
e
e
%
630-
%
610-
u
590J
0 2 4 6 8 10
1 ¦ ¦ * 1 ¦ * ¦ 1 ¦ ¦ ¦ 1 1 * ¦ 1 ¦ ¦ ¦ 1 ¦ 1
JKk
670-1
«*•
650-
""
C
o
630-
o
>
9
LU
610-
590-
0 2 4 6 8 10
1 ¦ ¦ 1 1 1 ¦ ¦ 1 1 ¦ 1 1 ¦ 1 ' 1 ¦ ¦ 1 1
MSI.
670-
1 ¦ « ' ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ 1 ' ¦ * 1 * ' « 1 « 1 « ¦ 1 «
MSL
670-
g 650^
f
3= 650-
I 630-
/
o 630-
o
/
o
J 610-
Ui
/
• 610-
Ul
590-
** March
590-
June
DO (mg/L)
0 2 4 6 8 10
1 ¦ ¦ ¦ 1 ¦ ¦ ¦ 1 ¦ ¦ ¦ 1 ¦ ¦ ¦ 1 ¦ ¦ ¦ 1 ¦
r
MSL
670-
£
650-
e
JO
630-
o
>
•
610-
Ui
590—*
w
650-
e
630-
a
>
•
ui
610-
July
DO (mg/L)
0 2 4 6 8 10
' * 1 ¦ 11 1 ¦ 11 ¦' 1 ¦ ¦ ¦ 1 ¦ ¦ ¦ I ¦ •
August
DO (mg/L)
o ? f 6 8 10
' 1 1 ' ' ' 1 ' 1 1 1 ¦ 1 1 ' ' 1 I ¦ ¦ I ¦ *
590-
September
-------
Figure 5.14
Depth Profile Curves of Corrected Chlorophyll a,
18 Mile Creek Embayment, Hartwell Reservoir, South Carolina, 1983
Station A-1
670
£ 650'
J 630 —1
"5
J 610-
ui
590-J
Chlorophyll n (msA)
0 IS 30 49 60 7,5 90
¦ ' 1 ' ' 1 ' 1 1 ' ' ' ' ' ' ' 1 '
February
Chlorophyll a. (moA)
670-
5, «50"H
J 630
a
| *1
-------
Figure 5.15
Depth Profile Curves of Corrected Chlorophyll a
18 Mile Creek Embayment, Hartwell Reservoir, South Carolina, 1983
Station A-2
Chlorophyll a (jjq/L)
0 15 30 45 60 75 90
670 I i i I i i I i ¦ I i i I i i 1 i i I
£ 650H
e
® 630-
"5
• 610-
Ui
590-J
v
, JSL
670
650
c
o
3=
630
o
i
610
u
590
February
Chlorophyll 5. (jig/L)
15 30 45 60 75 90
I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
March
Chlorophyll a. (jtg/L)
15 30 45 60 75 90
a
i
c
•70
w
650'
c
_o
630
b
>
•
610
Ui
590
Chlorophyll s, 0*9/1-)
15 30 45 60 75 90
i I i i I i i I i i I i i I i i-l
. JKk
May
670
S 650
c
° 630
o
.2 610
UI
590-1
Chlorophyll a. (m9/L)
15 30 45 60 75 90
¦ 1 1 1 1 1 1 ¦ 1 ¦ ¦ 1 ¦ ¦ 1 ¦ 1 1
MSL
670
650
c
£ 630-
"o
• 610H
Q
590-
June
Chlorophyll a, (fig/L)
15 30 45 60 75 90
¦ I ¦ ¦ I ¦ ¦ I ¦ ¦ I ¦ ¦ I ¦ ¦ I
MSL
670-
650-
1 ( 1 1 1 1 1 1
J
670
E 650
630-
c
£ 630
"5
610-
J 610
UI
590-
April
590
July
Chlorophyll a. (jig/l)
15 30 45 60 75 90
i i I i i I i i I i i I i i I i i I
MSL
670-
S 650-
e
2 630-
O
£ 610-)
c
590-
August
Chlorophyll a (ug/L)
15 30 45 60 75 90
¦ ¦ 1 ¦ * 1 ¦¦ 1 ¦ ¦ 1 ¦ 1 1 ¦ 1 1
. J5k
September
-------
Figure 5.1 6
Depth Profile Curves of Corrected Chlorophyll a.
18 Mile Creek Embayment, Hartwell Reservoir, South Carolina, 1983
Station A-3
670-
£ 650 H
c
£ 630 ~
"a
• 610
Ui
590 J
Chlorophyll & (jmq/L)
15 30 45 60 79 90
i I i i I i i I i i I i i I i i I
I
670-
£ 650 H
c
® 630-^
«*•
O
J 610-1
UJ
590-"
February
Chlorophyll a, (jig/L)
IS 30 49 60 79 90
¦ ¦ 1 ' 1 1 ' 1 1 1 ¦ 1 ¦ 1 1 ' ' '
JSk
670-
£ ego-
's
o 630-
§
5 61°H
590J
7
March
Chlorophyll a (ug/L)
15 30 45 60 75 90
¦ 1 ¦ ¦ 1 * ¦ 1 ¦ ¦ 1 ¦ ¦ 1
April
Chlorophyll fl. O^g/L)
670
£ 650
e
o 630
a
• 610-
UJ
Chlorophyll <3. 0*9/1-)
0 15 30 45 60 75 90
1 1 1 1 1 1 ¦ 1 * ¦ 1 ¦ ¦ 1 ¦ ¦ 1
590
T
USL
June
670-
«*•
650-
C
o
630-
a
>
•
UI
610-
390-
Chlorophyll a, Gug/L)
19 30 45 60 75 90
1 ' 1 1 ' 1 * ' 1 ¦ 1 1 1 ¦ 1 ' ¦ 1
7
670
C 1
£ 650-
c
O 630-
|
5 61°"
590J
July
Chlorophyll jg. (/xg/L)
15 30 45 60 75 90
1 1 1 ' 1 1 1 1 1 1 ¦ 1 ¦ ¦ ' • i I
T
August
Chlorophyll £ (/xg/L)
670-
I . . I . . 1 . . 1 i i 1 870-
£ 650-
c
^ £ 650-
>
^ 630-
« 630-
1 610-
UJ
! 6,0-
~
590-
May 590-
J«k
Sopt«mb«r
-------
Figure 5.17
Depth Profile Curves of Corrected Chlorophyll a.
18 Mile Creek Embayment, Hartwell Reservoir, South Carolina, 1983
Station A—4
670-
£ 650 H
c
.2 630-]
«•-
o
® 610-
590-
Chlorophyll a. (jug/L)
15 30 45 60 75 90'
' 1 ¦ ¦ 1 1 ¦ 1 ' 1 1 ' ¦ 1 ¦ ¦ 1
JSJ,
670-
£ «5
©
610-
UJ
590-J
Chlorophyll a. (/xg/L)
0 15 30 45 60 75 90
' 1 1 ' 1 1 1 1 ' ' 1 ¦ ¦ 1 ' ' '
MSL
670-
t-
650-
c
o
630-
o
>
e
UJ
610-
590-
June
Chlorophyll a. (/zg/L)
15 30 45 60 75 90
¦ < I ¦ ¦ 1 ¦ ¦ 1 ¦ ¦ 1 ¦ ¦ 1 ¦ ¦ 1
MSL
670
650
c
o
630
o
>
•
610
July
Chlorophyll a, (jig/L)
0 1 5 30 45 60 75 90
1 ¦ 1 ¦ ¦ I ¦ * I ¦ ¦ I i ¦ I ¦ ¦ I
590J
MSL
August
Chlorophyll cj, Cug/L)
•70-
*•>
650-
C
o
630-
o
©
UJ
610-
590-
15 30 45 60 75 90
1 * 1 1 ¦ 1 ¦ 1 1 ¦ 1 1 ¦ • 1 ¦ 1 1
JSi
September
-------
Figure 5.18
Depth Profile Curves of Corrected Chlorophyll a
18 Mile Creek Embayment, Hartwell Reservoir, South Carolina, 1983
Station A-5
670-
«•—
650-
C
JO
630-
a
>
9
tu
610-
590-
Chlorophyll & (jJ.g/L)
0 15 30 45 60 75 90
1 ¦ 1 1 ¦ 1 ¦ 1 1 ¦ * 1 ¦ ¦ 1 ¦ ' 1
7
_USL
February
Chlorophyll £ (/xg/L)
15 30 45 60 75 90
670-
£ 650-
MSJ,
jS 630-
o
• 610-
Ul
590-
March
Chlorophyll a, (jig/L)
15 30 45 60 75 90
1 ¦ ' 1 1 1 1 ' ' 1 ' ' 1
590-J
April
Chlorophyll £ (jig/L)
0 15 30 45 6.0 75 90
<70 I i i I i i I i i I i i I i i I '* I
— jJ3!i
£ 650-
c
£ 630-
«*•
o
• 610-
UJ
590-
May
670-
Chlorophyll fl. (yug/L)
0 15 30 45 60 75 90
1 ¦ 1 1 1 1 ¦ 1 1 ¦ '
£ 630- f
a
_® 610-
590-J
MSL
June
Chlorophyll a. {p.g/L)
15 30 45 60 75 90
i i i i i I ¦ i I ¦ ¦ I ¦ ¦ I . ¦ «
MSI,
670-
July
Chlorophyll a, 0ig/L)
0 15 30 45 60 75 90
£ 650-
|«H
610- ,
Ld
I I I I I I I I
¦I I ill t I
7
590-J August
Chlorophyll a. (ug/L)
15 30 45 60 75 90
•70- 11 1 11 1 ¦ * 1 i . . i
£ M0-
c
° 630-
! i
J '610-
590-J
September
-------
Figure 5.19
Flow Recording, Station EC-1, 18 Mile Creek,
Hartwell Reservoir, South Carolina, March 17 - 24, 1983
TIME (HRS)
-------
Figure 5.20
Flow Recording, Station EC-1, 18 Mile Creek,
Hartwell Reservoir, South Carolina, April 14 - 23, 1983
250-1
200-
yi 150-
Ll
o
£
0 >11111n n ni|111u|i1111111n11«11111111111n 11111111111 1111111111111
0 12 24 36 48 60 72 84 96 108 120 132 144
TIME (HRS)
-------
Figure 5.21
Flow Recording, Station EC—1, 18 Mile Creek,
Hartwell Reservoir, South Carolina, May 12 - 18, 1983
TIME (HRS)
-------
Figure 5.22
Flow Recording, Station EC—1, 18 Mile Creek,
Hartwell Reservoir, South Carolina, May 18 — 24, 1983
TIME (HRS)
-------
Figure 5.23
Flow Recording, Station EC—1, 18 Mile Creek,
Hartwell Reservoir, South Carolina, June 30 — July 6, 1983
250-
200-
150-
100-
50-
0-11 in ri|ii III 11 m 11 ii 11i11111111»i II pi 111{ 111111111 M 1111111II11111 III-1-|
0 12 24 36 48 60 72 84 96 l?0 13? H*
TIME (HRS)
-------
Figure 5.24
Flow Recording, Station EC—1, 18 Mile Creek,
Hartwell Reservoir, South Carolina, November 14 — 16, 1983
TIME (HRS)
-------
1.0-1
0.8-
^ 0.6-
O
Q.
f 0.4H
Figure 5.25
T—P vs Flow, Station EC-1, 18 Mile Creek,
Hartwell Reservoir, South Carolina, 1983
0.2-
+
+
+ ** * + -UU.+
f* *
+ £+ -
*+ + *+
p +t +*'¦
+ +
0.0-
~T~
150
1
200
~T~
50
i
100
FLOW (CPS)
250
-------
Figure 5.26
18 Mile Creek. Hartwell Reservoir, South Carolina, 1983
Phosphorous Transport vs Velocity
U
-------
Figure 5.27
Dye Study, Total Phosphorus Concentration Profile,
18 Mile Creek, Hartwell Reservoir, South Carolina, 1983
DISTANCE (MILES)
-------
Figure 5.28
Low Flow Dye Study, Total Phosphorus
and Total Suspended Solids Concentration Profile
18 Mile Creek, Hartwell Reservoir, South Carolina, 1983
DISTANCE (MILES)
-------
Figure 5.29
High Flow Dye Study, Total Phosphorus
and Total Suspended Solids Concentration Profile
18 Mile Creek, Hartwell Reservoir, South Carolina, 1983
DISTANCE (MILES)
-------
Figure 5.30
Total Phosphorus Loading from Point Sources,
18 Mile Creek Watershed,
Hartwell Reservior, South Carolina, August 1983
50-
>»
o
"O
in
3
a.
in
o
o
"o
40--
30-
20--
10 —
WP DR EL1 EL2 TC
Watershed Point Sources
-------
Figure 5.31
Percent Total Phosphorus Loading from Point Source Contributors,
18 Mile Creek Watershed, Hartwell Reservoir, South Carolina, 1983
Pendleton Finis
-------
Figure 5.32
Pendleton—Clemson WWTP Performance,
18 Mile Creek Watershed,
Hartwell Reservior, South Carolina, 1983
Months
-------
Figure 6.1
T—P Concentration vs Distance
18 Mile Creek Embayment, Hartwell Reservoir
South Carolina, 1983
A1 A2 A3 A4 A5
EMBAYMENT STATION
-------
Figure 6.2
B—P Concentration vs Distance
18 Mile Creek Arm, Hartwell Reservoir, South Carolina, 1983
ARM STATION
-------
Figure 6.3
Pelationship of !n-Arm Bioavailable Phosphorus
and Chlorophyll c_, 18 Mile Creek Arm,
Harfwell Reservoir, South Carolina, 1983
^75 Percent Difference
-------
Figure 7.1
Maximum Embayment TSI under Different Loading
Conditions, 18 Mile Creek Embayment,
Hartwell Reservoir, South Carolina
12 3 4
Embayment Segments
-------
APPENDIX A
CORRESPONDENCE
-------
South Carolina
Department of
Health and
BOARD
William M. Wilson, Chairman
J. Lorin Mason, Jr., M.D., Vice-Chairman
I. DeQuincey Newman, Secretary
Leonard W. Douglas, M.D.
George G. Graham, D.D.S.
Michael W. Mims
Barbara P. Nuessle
Environmental
COMMISSIONER
Roberts. Jackson, M.D.
2600 Bull Street
votumbia, S. C. 29201
Contro,
April 1, 1981
Dr. Ronald Raschke
Ecology Branch
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region IV
Bailey Road
Athens, Georgia 30601
Dear Ronj
Please find enclosed a portion of the information concerning Eighteen Mile
Creek which we discussed last week during the preliminary survey of the stream.
This information addresses two basic areas: sample analyses results from previous
work in that arm (cove) of the lake and the location of wastewater discharges to
the stream system.
I am planning to visit the area again this Thursday (April 2) to ascertain
where the zone of complete mixture between Eighteen Mile Creek and the effluent from
the Clemson/Pendleton treatment facility occurs. As soon as I have this determina-
tion, I shall forward it to you. aoi^.ouc^ji.trict director from that area called
this week to relate a complaint from an'individual about an algal bloom in the
Eighteen Mile Creek arm of the lake. I plan to meet with our director in Clemson
on April 2 as well to discuss this complaint.
I hope that this information will be useful as a starting point for the pro-
posed work in this area. As I gather more data and/or information concerning this
area of the lake, I shall pass it along to you. As you develop your strategy for
the investigation of this area, do not hesitate to contact me if I can be of assist-
ance. In the interim, if there are any questions concerning this information, please
notify me as such.
Thank you for your assistance.
Sincerely,
Mike Marcus
Stream & Facility Monitoring Section
Environmental Quality Control
MM/al
enclosure
-------
Soith Carolina
Deoartmerlof
i
BOARD
William M. Wilson, Chairman
J. Lorin Mason. M D . Vice-C^a.mnan
I. OeQuincey Newman, Secretary
Leonard W Douglas M.D
George G Grah;im, DOS
M.cnaeiW Mims
Barbara P Nuessle
Conho
April 3, 1981
COMMISSIONER
Roberts Jackson, M.D
2600 Bull Street
Columbia, S.C 29201
Ms. Rebecca Hanmer, Regional Administrator
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region IV
345 Courtland Street, N.E.
Atlanta, GA 30365
Dear Ms. Hdruucr:
For the past few years, EPA's Ecology Branch in Athens, Georgia, has assisted
us by conducting algal assay growth potential tests. These tests have proven to
be an important factor in the evaluation of nutrients originating from wastewater
treatment plants and the resulting response of algal populations in downstream
waters„ Two particular cases where algal assay testing has been done by the
Ecology Branch are the Woodsen Subdivision Wastewater Treatment Plant and Lake
Greenwood - Western Carolina Sewer Authority Mauldin Road Treatment Plant Studies.
We are very appreciative of this assistance from the Ecology Branch and of the
interest, cooperation and high level of expertise provided by Dr. Ronald Raschke
and Mr. Don Schultz in completing this work.
At this time, we have need for additional assistance from Dr. Raschke and Mr,
Schultz. We are in the process of evaluating the potential impact of nutrients
being discharged to 18 Mile Creek in Anderson County, S. C., on the waters of the
18 Mile Creek arm of Lake Hartwell. Also, we would like to have previous algal
assays studies conducted on Broadway Lake repeated this summer." The Broadway Lake
studies are being conducted to evaluate the effects of BMP installation under the
joint EPA-USDA Model Implementation Program project. As before, this activity will
be closely coordinated between our Division of Biological, Stream and Facility
Monitoring md Emergency Response and Ecology Branch personnel. Your approval for
assistance is requested and we look forward to working with EPA's Ecology Branch
personnel on these studies.
JEJ/RWS/al
cc: Jim Finger
Lee Tebo
Ronald Raschke
Noel Hurley
Chester Sansbury
Russ Sherer
Yours very truly,
John E. Jenkins, P.E., Deputy Commissions
Environmental Quality Control
-------
South Carolina
Department of
Health and
Environmental
Control
April 3, 1981
dumHU
William M Wilson. Chairman
J. Lorin Mason, Jr , M D Vice-Chairman
I. DeQuincey Newman, Secretary
Leonard W Douglas, M D.
George G Graham, DDS
Michael W Mims
Barbara P Nuessie
COMMISSIONER
Robert S Jackson, M 0.
2600 Bull Street
Columbia, S. C. 29201
Ms. Rebecca Hanmer, Regional Administrator
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region IV
345 Courtland Street, N,E.
Atlanta, GA 30365
Dear Ms. Hanmer:
Tor the past few years, EPA's Ecology Branch in Athens, Georgia, haa»«S£itX1&
ili^by conducting algal assay growth potential tests. These tests ijSVO prow*tt-6o/
fevaluation of nutri-enta originating from wastewater
jfclliHiHi pttwata • »nitlHt« populations ia;j(tewnim««BV
tgUfSiffl. Two particular cases where algal assay testing has been done by the
Eco^£^£ranch are the 0BUKii Subdivision Wastewater Treatment Plant and Lake
- Western Carolina Sewer Authority Mauldin Road Treatment Plant Studies.
We are very appreciative of this assistance from the Ecology Branch and of the
interest, cooperation and ptoyi&Wtyby Dr. Ronald Raschke
and Mr. Don Schultz in completing this work.
At this time, we have need for additional assistance from Dr. Raschke and Mr.
Schultz. We are in the process of evaluating the potential impact of nutrients
being discharged to 18 Mile Creek in Anderson County, S. C., on the waters of the
18 Mile Creek arm of Lake Hartwell. Also, we would like to have previous algal
assays studies conducted on Broadway Lake repeated this summer.' The Broadway Lake
studies are being conducted to evaluate the effects of BMP installation under the
joint EPA-USDA Model Implementation Program project. As before, this activity will
be closely coordinated between our Division of Biological, Stream and Facility
Monitoring and Emergency Response and Ecology Branch personnel. Your approval for
assistance is requested and we look forward to working with EPA's Ecology Branch
personnel on these studies.
JEJ/RWS/al
cc: Jim Finger
Lee Tebo
Ronald Raschke
Noel Hurley
Chester Sansbury
Russ Sherer
Yours very truly,
John E. Jenkins, P.E., Deputy Commission
Environmental Quality Control
-------
South Carolina Department of Health
and Environmental Control
Board
2600 Bull Street
Columbia. S.C. 29201
Moses H. Clarkson, Jr., Chairman
Leonard W. Douglas, M.D., Vice-Chairman
Commissioner
Robert S. Jackson, M.D.
ApriT¥7, 1984
Barbara P. Nuessle, Secretary
Gerald A. Kaynard
Oren L. Brady, Jr.
James A. Spruill, Jr.
William H. Hester, M.D.
Dr. Ronald Raschke
Ecology Branch
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region IV
Bailey Road
Athens, GA 30601
Dear Ron:
Per our telephone conversation of today, please find enclosed results frcm our
chlorophyll a and phytoplankton sampling of Eighteen Mile Creek on April 2, 1981.
These samples were collected in the main portion of Eighteen Mile Creek arm of Lake
Hartwell near the Corps of Engineers boat ramp in response to a citizen's complaint
of an algal bloom in the arm of the lake.
I reviewed my files on Eighteen Mile Creek but was unable to obtain any other
information that would be useful to your current project. Nevertheless, I do hope
this enclosed material will be beneficial.
If I can provide any further assistance, please contact me.
Sincerely
Mike Marcus
Stream and Facility Monitoring Section
Environmental Quality Control
MM/al
Enclosure
-------
tv Mile Oreek f-2-V
dfitoreply7/ f^U)
*f/~^<35 _
J a- 51.93 X - a.i
-------
SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL
J. MARION SIMS BUILDING • COLUMBIA, SOUTH CAROLINA 29201 • PHONE 803-758-5654
£3MO-LSTT3
l(e l
SUBJECT
/ ^ ,'>
a. I (L
tf net tJs.
i(L h*«.d
cu\.
-tJ*
"'"fc. Chios' -tafc
4--'<--2/
1^2 Al « ^ £ /¦ v. /cil^~
i I; f\ ^_
£ollec.t«J M. t- AC/3
ft
22
c\ /-cu^t4 <•
r
fc
iaj>(t/ ^
<
farm ML4.N72 Th« Of oi
Iftc . tax -5CS fiallat 1m..
-------
ft
A
,cK
/4 M.
South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control
BIOLOGICAL MONITORING - COUNTS AND IDENTIFICATION
s3F
,35-361
Page.
.Of.
Form 50
STATION (2-161
YR MO
117-18 19-21
7-18 19-2C 21-22
ZGlEl £
DA
1-221
TIME
23-26
DEPTH
27-31
LAB USE:
PARAMETER (2-10)
VALUE (12-19)
M£
PARAMETER (2-101
VALUE (12-41)
STRIPSCNT
(1)
CNT-METH
(19)
SEDGWICK-RAFTER
FIELDSCNT
(2)
-O
1 ST-ABUND (30)
CHlAl*V bCHVffk} j>P-
SCRAPEVOL (2)
2 ND-ABUND (30)
magnlvl
(4)
TOT-TAXA
') 7 5-
3 RD-ABUND (30)
AtVKl&Tru bBJrtus
(3)
u
4 TH-ABUND
(30)
AA.
SAMPRET (5.1)
ANA-DATE
(8)
ANA-REM
(50)
ANA-REM
(50)
ANA-REM
(50)
/MnjLfi1
aTAViculA
VA
B0-B1
bArCTVLQCoccorSlS
TALLY
52
u
-56
LAB USE ONLY
1 2 3
8 ^
7
ir
i ^
ie> /
(sy
-------
c ortPC/HM/,
South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control
BIOLOGICAL MONITORING FIELD DATA SHEET I
j
STATION (2-16)
YR
17-18
MO
I9-2C
DA
21-22
TIME
23-26
BLANK
(27-321
33
34
S
35-36
BLANK (37-80)
fi
1 1 1 1 1 II 1
IMI
d#
o
2
'III 1
B
oh
mm
1
PARAMETER (2-10)
VALUE (12-21)
UNIT (22-31)
LAB USE ONLY
CLOUD-CVR
0
PER CENT COVERAGE
AIRTEMCEL
+
3
DEGREES CENTIGRADE
SURFWTEMP
+
I
2
DEGREES CENTIGRADE
TRANSPAR
Q
t
5
METERS
MAXDEP
METERS
WAVEHGHT
METERS
PRECIP
1
5
TYPE-INTENSITY-DURATION
RIVER-STG
LOW-HIGH-FLOOD
TIDESTG
SEE MANUAL
SEDIMENT ANALYSIS REQUIRED FOR MACROINVERTEBRATE SAMPLES
COU.ECTOBS: ^M..T HM . OX
METERS FROM SHORE
NOTES:
f W>-»
/
STATION (2-16)
7ft
IT-18
19—2C
DA
21-22
TIME
23-28
"MP
«
32
33
T
34
S
35-36
BLANK (37-80)
k
II 1 1 II 1 1
1
1
II!
III!
D
1
i
(2-10)
11
(12-19)
(20-33)
(34-41)
(42-46)
SEDCLASS
A
SED-NAME
BOULDER
SED-COMP
SEDCLASS
B
SED-NAME
RUBBLE
SED-COMP
SEDCLASS
C
SED-NAME
COARSE GRAVEL
SED-COMP
SEDCLASS
D
SED-NAME
MEDIUM GRAVEL
SED-COMP
SEDCLASS
E
SED-NAME
FINE GRAVEL
SED-COMP
SEDCLASS
R
SED-NAME
COARSE SAND
SED-COMP
SEDCLASS
G
SED-NAME
MEDIUM SAND
SED-COMP
SEDCLASS
If
SED-NAME
FINE SAND
SED-COMP
SEDCLASS
1
SED-NAME
SILT
SED-COMP
SEDCLASS
J
SED-NAME
CLAY
SED-COMP
SEDCLASS
K
SED-NAME
ORGANIC MATTER
SED-COMP
STORET DATA
SPRING
SUMMER 1,2,3
FAI 1
(OTHER
c~-—--- Form 20
STATION
DATE
Time
Depth
(M)
D.O.
TEMP
<°C)
CONDUC
pH
SALIN
% RB
82048
00300
00010
00004
00400
00480
00002
0.3
l*.3
i&.O
)•:=?
13.o
4<2>.0
l(xx>
6.0
4-c.o
hirj
7.0
\\
5o.o
/iVS
8 0
l\ .CS
/s-j?
9.0
IO.G
<4^,0
rSO>
lO.Ci
Ao.o
1 1.0
12.0
13.0
14.0
15.0
16.0
17.0
18 0
19.0
20 0
21.0
22.0
23.0
24.0
#
SAMPLES COL
Parameter
LECTED
#
Parameter
/
PHYTO ID
BOTTLE
MACROINV
MULTIPLT
V-
PHYTOCHLA
TUBE
MACROINV
DREDGE
PERI-ID
BOTTLE
MACROINV
QUALIT.
PERI-CHLA
TUBE
FISH
, PERI-BIOM
VIAL
-------
APPENDIX B
STREAM AND PENDLETON-CLEMSON WWTP WATER QUALITY MONITORING
DISCUSSION OF EACH SAMPLING EVENT
s
<3
*
<
-------
WATER QUALITY MONITORING
March 19-24 Sampling Period
The March sampling event was the first full six day samoling period during tho
18 Mile Croek study. Rainfall on March 18 (0.09 in.) and 19 (0.47 in.) pro-
duced a slight increase in streamflow as shown or> the stage recorder chart
(Figure Bl). The rainfall did not result in increased flows at the Pendleton-
CJemson WWTP and plant performance was not affected. Rainfall on March 21 of
1.16 in. did cause a significant increase in stream flow from less than 65 cfs
to over 200 cfs within 14 hours (Tine 12 hrs. to 26 hrs. - Figure Bl). The
stream T-P concentration remained at less than 0.20 mg/1 until 24 hours into
the event (Table Bl, Figure Bl). At this time, 0540 on March 21, the WWTP
experienced a dramatic increase in effluent TSS and T-P concentrations (Figure
B2). The effluent TSS increased from 5 mg/1 to 1100 mg/1 within 6 hours and
the T-P concentrat.ion similarly responded with an increase from 4.3 mg/1 to 24
ng/] (Table B2). The decline in effluent quality can be traced to the increased
flow to the WWTP during the period of rainfall in the Pendleton-Clemson area.
Plant flows increased from 0.42 mgd at 1740 or March 20 to over 1.35 mgd at
0540 on the 21st (Table B2).
The WWTP, prior to the rainfall event, contributed from 36 to 43 percent of the
total T-P loading (lb/d) to 18 Mile Creek. The WWTP averaged approximately 14
to 21 percent, excluding periods of rainfall or extremely low flows, during the
remainder of the study. At 2400 on March 20 the stream T-P loading had in-
creased to 118 lb/d, however the loading from the WWTP had not yet increased.
The increased stream T-P loading at this time (18 hr.) was due to non-point
source contributions from within the watershed. The effects of the WWl'P are
first noticed at 0540 following the wash-out of solids from the secondary
clarifiers (Table B2). The WWTP during this time period contributed 58 percent
of the total stream T-P loading. As the WWTP flow decreased to below 0.65 mgd
the effluent quality improved. TSS and T-P concentrations dropped to 6 mg/1
and 3.60 mg/1, respectively, by 0540 on March 22 (Table B2). The percentage
contribution of T-P by the WWTP to the stream dropped to less than 25 percent
for the remainder of the sampling period.
At the peak of the WWTP flow the TKN and NH3 values were 68 mg/1 and 0.92 mg/1,
respectively.. At this time (24 hrs.) the WWTP was contributing 48 percent of the
stream TKN load and 22 percent of the stream NH3 load.
The WWTP contributed 93 percent of the B-P loading to the stream at the begin-
ning of the sampling period. Generally the WWTP contributed a higher percent-
age of the stream B-P loading than T-P loading at base flows. The B-P data for
this event show that the percentage of the T-P load in the stream comprised by
B-P was approximately 30 percent at low flows. Because the B-P loading re-
mained relatively constant during the period of increased flows, the percentage
of the T-P load in the stream comprised by B-P at high flows was significantly
less (10 percent and below). The B-P data for the WWTP at high flows was not
available due to interferences in the algal assay procedure.
-------
April 14-19 Sampling Period
The April sampling was the onlv full seven dav period sampled during the
study frThen flovzs were not elevated by a rainfall event. The flow in 18 Mile
Creek remained fairly steady during the week at a stage height of approxi-
mately 0.95 to 1.25 ft. and an average flow of 98.9 cfs (Table B3). The
stream flow did show a slight response to 0.20 inches of rainfall early in
the week, and a very minimal response to 0.16 inches of rainfall towards the
end of the sampling period. The average WWTP flow for the week, 0.44 mgd or
0.68 cfs, was below the average flow of 0.52 mgd for April, 1983. Also the
WWTP flow comprised less than 1.0 percent of the total flow in 18 Mile Creek.
The WWTP seldom, even during periods of rainfall when infiltration/inflow
increased WWTP flows, contributed more than 1.0 percent of the total stream
flow.
The WWTP effluent T-P averaged 2.6 mg/1 and 10 Ib/d for the seven day period
(Table B4). This was 21 percent of the total T-P loading to 18 Mile. Creek
during the sampling period. The effluent quality was very high with respect
to TSS and BOD5 as evidenced by the concentrations for the April 19-20 period
of 3.0 mg/1 and 4.3 mg/1, respectively (Table B5).
The WWTP was removing a significant amount of NH3 via nitrification within
the activated sludge system. The average effluent NH3 concentration for the
seven day period was 1.4 mg/1 (Table B4). The contribution of the WWTP to
the TKN and NH3 loadings in 18 Mile Creek during the sampling period was less
than 7.5 percent for both parameters.
May 13-18 Sampling Period
The May 13-18 sampling event was the first of two weeks sampled in May. A
second week was sampled (May 19-24) because of the failure of the automatic
sampler set to collect the samples for the B-P analysis during the first week
of sampling. The May 13-18 sampling event actually experienced two seperate
periods of high flow (Figure B3). The rainfall preceeding the sampling period
consisted of 0.34 in on May 4 and 0.10 in on May 8. Rainfall of 1.67 in
occurred on May 13 to 14 and the stream flow in 18 Mile Creek increased from
59 cfs to over 112 cfs at 1115 on May 14 (Table B6). Smaller rainfall amounts
of 0.48 in on May 16 and 0.89 in on May 17 resulted in a larger increase in
stream flow to over 204 cfs (Figure B3). The higher flows at apparently
smaller rainfall amounts could be due to either the antecedent rainfall early
In the week which caused the runoff to be greater on the 17th or the occurance
of greater rainfall on the 16th or 17th elsewhere It? the 18 Mile Creek water-
shed that was not recorded at the WWTP.
The WWTP, as occurred in March, experienced a loss of solids from the treat-
ment system during the first and second high flow periods. The effluent TSS
was 8 mg/1 immediately prior to the first flow increase at 0455 on May 13.
The WWTP flow increased from 0.45 mgd to 0.65 mgd and the effluent TSS con-
centration increased, following a six hour lag as the blanket level rose in
the clarifiers, to 780 mg/1 (Figure B4). The T-P concentration also responded
to the solids loss by increasing from 5.1 mg/1 to 27 mg/1 (Table B7). The
T-P concentration in 18 Mile Creek increased from 0.21 mg/1 to 0.36 mg/1
during this time period
-------
(12 to Z4 br.) and the WWTP was responsible for 60 percent of the T-P loading
at the 18 br. mark of the sampling event (Figure B4). As the WWTP flow
('ccreased to less than 0.50 regc! the effluent quality improved as TSS concentra-
tions fell below 15 mg/1 and T-P concentrations decreased to the 5.0 to 7.0
irig/1 range (Table B7).
It should be noted that the solids loss occurred even though the plant flow
did not exceed 50 percent of design and both clarifiers were in operation.
However, the plant flow did increase by approximately 50 percent over the
base flow level prior to the first rainfall period. As discussed in this
report the solids losses often occurred during the time periods when the
plant was not staffed. This was true for both of the rainfall periods during
the first May sampling event. The. washouts occurred at 0455 on March 14 and
from 1655 on March 16 to 0455 on March 17 (Figure B4).
A second rainfall event occurred later in the week that resulted, as mentioned
previously, in higher flows at the WWTP and in the stream even though rainfall
amounts recorded at the WWTP were less (Figure B4). Plant flow increased to
0.70 mgd and flow in 18 Mile Creek peaked at over 230 cfs. The WWTP again
experienced a solids loss from the clarifiers from 1655 on March 16 to 0455
on March 17 (Figure B4). The effluent TSS increased from 10 mg/1 to 880 mg/1
within 6 hours and T-P increased from 5.1 mg/1 to 18.2 mg/1 during the same
time interval (Table B7). The T-P concentrations in the stream increased
from 0.17 mg/1 to 0.77 mg/1 during the time period when the WWTP effluent
quality declined. The WWTP was responsible for 44 percent of the T-P loading
to the stream (78 hr. into the event). It should be noted that stream T-P
concentrations had begun to increase prior to the decline in WWTP performance
for each of these two rainfall periods during the May 12-18 sampling event
(Table B6). However, the elevated stream T-P concentrations are due primar-
ily to the contributions of the WWTP during the periods of poor performance.
The WWTP contributed an average of 20 percent of the total stream T-P loading
for the entire seven day period. It should be noted that the WWTP often has
effluent T-P concentrations of 2.0 mg/1 or less when the system is not exper-
iencing hydraulic transients.
May 19-24 Sampling Period
The second week of sampling in May was conducted so that both T-P and B-P
analyses could be completed on samples collected at the WWTP and 18 Mile
Creek. This sampling period was .also characterized by rainfall and increased
stream flow. The watershed received 0.07 in. of rainfall on May 19, 0.83
ins. on May 20, and 0.43 in. on May 21 in addition to a smaller amount on the
22nd and 0.28 in. again on the 23rd. The peak flow of over 226 cfs occurred
at approximately 56 hr. into the event (Figure B5). This peak flow was just
below the peak flow from the previous week of over 230 cfs. The hydrograph
was similar to those observed in March and the first sampling period in May
as indicated by the sharp increase In flow on the rising limb, a peak flow of
over 200 cfs, the relatively short duration of elevated flow (usually less
than 16 hrs.), and the rapid fall of the descending hydrograph limb (Figure
B5).
-------
Tbe WWTP v?as at a base flow of approximately 0.30 to 0.40 when a flow Increase
to 0.78 mgd was experienced (Figure B6). Although this flow was well helow
design the WWTP had been operating at less than 50 percent of this peak of
0.78 mgd (Table B9). The effluent TSS co ncentration increased from a low of
15 mg/1 to over 570 mg/1 at 30 hr. into the event. Effluent T-P was 15.6
mg/] during the time of maxinum soliHs loss. The WWTP was contributing 66
percent of the total T-P loading to the stream as compared to 14 percent for
the entire six day sampling period. The T-P concentration in the stream
increased from 0.14 mg/1 to 0.22 mg/1 at 18 to 30 hrs. Figure B5 shows these
concentrations were below those observed in the stream later in the event
when WWTP performance was good and T-P contributions were not significant
(Table B8).
Tbe WWTP flow suddenly decreased at 0455 on May 21 (48 hr.) just as the
stream flow was increasing towards the peak flow at 56 hr. (Figure B6).
Effluent quality remained relatively steady during the remainder of the
sampling period with TSS and T-P concentrations in the 25 mg/1 and 2.0 mg/1
ranges, respectively (Table B9). The WWTP contributed less than 15 percent
of the T-P loading to the stream during the remainder of the sampling period.
The T-P concentrations and loadings in 18 Mile Creek continued to increase as
the stream flow moved towards the peak of the hydrograph. The highest T-P
concentration, 0.28 mg/1, and loading, 319 lb/d, coincided with the peak of
the hydrograph. Nonpoint sources, and to a lesser degree upstream point
sources, were responsible for the T-P loading increase observed from 42 hr.
to 60 hr. into the event (Figure B5).
The WWTP was not achieving a high degree of nitrification during this samp-
ling period as NH3 concentrations ranged from 7.5 mg/1 to 17.5 mg/1 when the
solids washout occurred (Table B9). The WWTP was not nitrifying earlier in May
but did achieve significant NH3 reductions in March and April.
The WWTP contributed from 20 to 30 percent of the stream TKN loading during
the six day sampling period with a peak of 59 percent at the 30 hr. mark.
June 30 - July 6 Sampling Period
The sampling event in June-July occurred during a period of low flow. The
base flow at the beginning of the week was less than 48 cfs at a stage of
0.58 ft. (Table B14). The stream flow responded to the rainfall on July 1 of
0.88 in. by increasing to over 78 cfs at the peak of the hydrograph (30 hr.
into the event). The WWTP effluent T-P was higher during low flow at the
pJant than observed during the previous months. T-P concentrations were
between 15 and 17* mg/1 prior to the flow increase at the WWTP (Figure B8).
The stream T-P levels were impacted as the T-P concentration at base flow was
0.44 to 0.46 mg/1 (Table B14). The stream T-P concentrations at the majority
of flows during the study were less than 0.20 mg/1. The reason for the
higher T-P values in the stream during this event can be traced to the fact
that less dilution of the immediate upstream point source (Pendleton-Clemson
WWTP) was being provided during the low flow periods in June, July, and
August.
-------
The percentage of the T-P loading to the stream contributed by the WWTP could
not be determined because the plant flow meter was out of service during the
early period of this sampling event. Assuming the WWTP flow was G.4G mgd the
plant would have been contributing approximately 40 to 45 percent of the T-P
loading. Note that the contribution of the WWTP during a similar low flow
period in August (37 cfs) was 42 to 47 percent. The stream T-P concentration
during the August sampling period was 0.50 and 0.60 mg/1. These August T-P
concentrations were among the highest observed during the study period and
they occurred during the period of lowest flow. The T-P concentration in the
stream decreases as the stream flow increases and more dilution of the WWTP
point source is available. However, the stream concentrations were shown to
increase at higher flows if WWTP performance declined. The WWTP effluent
quality remained relatively unchanged during the initial period of the event
(0-18 hrs).
The WWTP experienced two periods of solids loss during this sampling event.
The first was apparently flow related, however the second occurred when plant
flow had decreased to 0.45 mgd (Table B15). The peak T-P concentrations were
28 to 30 mg/1 during the time of solids loss from the clarifiers. The stream
T-P concentrations never reached the high values observed at the low flow in
August even when the WWTP performance declined.
-------
TABLE B-l
PRWI8 Hilt CKH STUM
BATE:
MARCH
LOCATION:
H SIAlIO*
station
M1E
T1IC
bottle ND
11K
SINE Ifl) FUM ICfS)
T-P tlffi/L)
T-P 1LB/B)
i-p mtu
B-P lll/fi)
TKN ttlG/L)
TKN IIB/B)
*03 mil)
*05 118/})
NH3 INS/L)
NH3 tlB/t)
TSS miu
1SS (ll/D)
£t-J
3/19-20
1200-0400
9-12
0
0.8A
AS. 10
0.11
39
.041
14
0.28
98
0.40
211
.05
IB
43
15088
CC-I
3/20
1200
13
t
0.81
61.40
0.09
3tf
.032
11
0.21
70
0.41
203
.05
17
140
53124
EC-I
3/20
1800
14
12
0.82
42. JO
0.10
34
.029
10
0.37
124
0.42
208
.05
17
210
70517
EC-1
mo
2400
IS
tt
1.38
113.30
0.19
its
.048
30
0.53
329
0.35
342
.05
31
210
130508
EC-I
1/21
0400
14
24
1.75
173.20
0.30
447
.035
33
1.70
1587
0.53
493
.03
47
390
344064
EC-1
3/21
1200
1?
30
1.80
183.10
0.33
3(3
-
0
1.10
1084
0.47
444
.08
79
350
343418
ec-i
1/21
1800
11
14
1.41
128.70
0.31
215
-
0
0.B1
542
0.49
340
.08
55
210
115474
EC-I
J/21
2400
19
42
1.24
101.10
0.20
109
.014
9
0.47
254
0.31
278
.05
27
200
10B9B4
EC-1
1/22
0600
20
48
1.14
90. AO
0.15
73
.043
31
0.38
184
0.54
273
.05
24
78
38090
EC-I
3/22
1200
21
34
1.10
84.80
0.13
39
.073
33
0.19
87
0.58
245
.05
23
130
59419
EC-I
3/22
iaoo
22
AO
1.07
82.00
0.14
42
.043
28
0.28
124
0.41
270
.07
31
280
123754
EC-I
3/22
2400
23
u
1.03
78.30
0.12
51
.034
24
0.15
43
0.59
250
.05
21
120
50774
tt-l
3123-24
0400-0400
24-21
n
0.96
72.70
0.11
43
.033
13
0.15
59
0.40
235
.05
20
54
21140
TABLE B-2
>1 KILE CSta STlfflY
BOTE:
MUCH
location:
PENDLETON-CL
EHSQH WTP
STATION
NTE
TINE
BOTTLE NO
TIRE
FUM (RGB)
FLOH (CFS)
T-P IH6/L)
T-P (LB/t)
B-P IH6/LI
B-P (LB/M
TKN (H6/LI
TKN ILB/D1
N03 (H6/U
NQ3 (LB/D1
NH3 IMG/U
NH3 ILB.'Dl
TSS CHG/U
ISS (lB/BJ
CP-001
3/19-20
1140-0340
9-12
0
0.39
0.40
4.40
14
3.93
13
1.00
3
0.10
0.33
0.15
0.49
4
13
CP-001
3/20
1140
13
6
0.31
0.48
5.20
13
-
0
1.10
3
0.08
0.21
0.15
0.39
5
13
CP-001
3/20
1740
14
12
0.42
0.45
4.70
14
-
0
0.68
3
0.08
0.28
0.05
0.1B
3
11
CP-001
3/20
2340
15
18
0.45
1.01
4.30
23
2.44
13
1.00
5
0.09
0.49
0.10
0.54
5
27
CP-001
3(2t
0540
14
24
1.35
2.09
24.00
270
-
0
66.00
766
0.23
2.59
o.s;
10.14
uoo
125B5
CP-001
3/21
1740
18
3A
0.43
1.01
5.70
31
-
0
7.00
38
0.15
0.B1
0.90
4.90
ts
531
CP-001
3/21
2340
19
42
0.47
1.04
4.50
23
3.02
17
3.50
20
0.05
0.2B
0.94
5.20
37
207
CP-001
3/22
0340
20
48
0.23
0.39
3.40
8
-
0
1.40
3
o.oa
0.17
0.48
Ml)
b
13
CP-001
3/22
1140
21
34
0.40
0.93
2.90
15
2.34
12
i.:o
4
0.05
0.25
0.24
1.20
NA
0
CP-091
3/22
1740
22
40
0.52
O.BO
1.80
8
-
0
1.10
5
0.12
0.52
0.15
0.45
NA
0
CP-001
3/22
2340
23
it
0.57
0.88
2.00
10
3.1
15
1.20
4
0.11
0.52
0.21
0.99
M
0
CP-001
3/23-24
2406-2400
24-28
72
0.43
0.47
2.30
8
3.27
12
1.20
4
0.15
0.54
0.15
0.54
4
22
-------
TABLE B-3
IB KILE CREEK STUB*
MTE: APRIL LOCATION: NB STATION
STATION BATE TINE BOTTLE NO STASE (FT) FLO* (CFSt T-P (NB/U T-P (LB/B) B-P (Itt/U l-P (U/tl UK tllS/L) UN ILS.'OI KBJ IN6/L) *03 (LB/B) NH3 IHB/LI NH3 (LB/t) T5S IHfi/L)
EM 4/14-20 1030-1030 1-24 1.24 98.90 0.09 47.79 - - 0.39 207 0.61 323.00 0.13 69.00 49
(6 MY AVS.IU Mf AVS.)
TABLE B-4
IB RILE CREEK STUDY
BATE: APRIL LOCATION: PENBLETON-CLERSON MMTf
STATION MTE TIKE FLON (II6D1 FLU (CFSI T-P (N6/LI T-P (LB/B) »-f (NS/U l-P (LB/B) 1*1) (ItS/U V(* (IB/B) K03 (ItS/L) N£>3 IL8/D) NH3 lltS/L) HH3 ILB/J) TSS IB6/L) BQD5 ir,3/L)
CP-ttt 4/14-20 1010-1010 0.44 0.68 2.6 10 3.1 11 3.3 12.10 ,1B 0.66 1.4 5.13 MA HA
(6 MV AV6.H6 BAT AVfi.i
IB NILE CREEK STUCK
MTE: APRIL LOCATION: PEN8LET0N-CLEHS0N IWTP
STATION MTE TIKE FLON DIED) FLON ICFS> T-P llWfL) T-P (18/D) B-P (H6/U B-P (LB/tl TKN (NB/L1 TKN (LS.'Ol NQ3 ((15/11 KQJ (LB/DI «H3 (KS/LI NK3 (LB/01 TSS (flS.'U S0E5 Mfi/LI
CP-OOI 4/19-20 1100-1160 0.37 0.58 3.00 9 - - 4.70 69.00 0.22 0.69 3.40 10.63 3 4.2
TABLE B-5
IB NILE CREEK STU0V
MTE: APRIL STORK LOCATION: NO STATION
STATION DATE TIKE BOTTLE NO TINE STA6E (FT) FLON (CFSI T-P (116/1) T-P (LB/D) B-P (ItG/L) B-P (LB/HI TKN MS/I) TKK (L8/D) NQ3 H16/L> *03 ILB/D) NH3 |H3 U KH3 iLB'C) TSS 1116/1.)
EC-1
4/23
0900
1
0
4.90
68.00
0.10
37
.032
12
0.4?
m
" 0.59
216
\0.05
IB
54
EC-1
4/23
1700
9
9
MS
89,60
0.10
4B
.042
20
0.46
222
0.61
294
<0.05
24
42
EC-1
4/23
2100
13
13
1.38
115.35
0.13
BO
.175
109
0.42
259
0.60
369
v0.05
30
56
EC-1
4/24
0100
17
17
1.47
127.35
0.13
B9
.065
45
0.50
343
0.56
3B3
>0.05
34
92
EC-1
4/24
0900
25
23
1.32
107.90
0.13
68
.122
71
HA
NA
0.57
334
'.0.1,5
:¦)
110
-------
11 NILE CHECK STUDY
MtC:
mr in
location:
M STATION
STATION
MTE
TIKE
BOTTLE NO
TINE
STME (FT) FUN
(CFSI
T-P IIK/l)
EM
3/12-U
1115-1113
1-5
8
8.77
39.00
-
EM
S/IJ
1713
4
4
8.80
40.80
0.14
EM
5/13
2315
7
12
1.20
94.40
0.21
EM
3/14
«S13
8
11
1.15
89.10
0.33
EC-I
5/14
1113
9
24
1.34
112.80
0.34
EC-I
3/14
1715
10
30
1.13
87.40
0.24
EM
5/14
2315
11
U
1.00
75.90
0.18
EC-I
3/15
0315
12
42
t.n
49.40
0.20
EC-I
5/15
1113
13
48
o.ti
48.80
0.19
EC-i
3/IS
1715
14
34
8.8?
47.30
0.13
EM
3/15
2)15
15
40
0.85
44.40
0.18
EC-I
3/14
4515
14
tt
0.85
44.40
0.17
EC-t
3/It
1113
17
72
1.87
197.70
0.77
EC-i
3/14
1715
18
78
1.90
204.40
0.35
EC-I
5/14
2313
19
84
1.52
134.40
0.32
EC-I
5/17
0315
20
90
1.24
98.90
0.23
EM
5/17
1115
21
94
1.11
87.40
0.21
EC-1
5/17
1713
22
102
1.04
81.10
0.11
EC-I
5/17
2115
23
168
1.02
77.40
0.19
EC-1
3/IB
0515
24
114
0.97
73.30
0.11
TABLE B-6
-P (LI/JI UN (HE/L) TKN (18/01 N03 (flE/L) NO3 (LB/D) NH3 (Itf/ll NH3 IL8/D) ISS ING/Ll 1SS (IB/DI
-
0.22
70
0.05
14
0.17
54
B
2544
44
0.52
m
0.48
157
0.44
iSI
34
11142
107
0.77
393
NAI
0
0.07
34
no
B1163
149
1.08
522
NAI
0
0.05
24
140
47412
219
1.34
815
NAI
0
O.OS
30
200
I2I59B
123
0.92
434
0.43
203
O.OS
24
110
51938
74
0.82
335
0.43
174
0.04
25
79
32319
73
0.49
259
NAI
0
0.04
23
94
35:44
70
0.53
197
0.47
174
O.OS
19
(4
2373J
34
0.33
192
0.34
131
0.04
22
50
18137
42
0.55
191
0.33
US
0.14
49
50
17354
59
0.31
177
0.44
153
0.07
24
50
17354
821
1.87
1993
NAI
0
0.10
107
570
407394
384
1.32
1454
NAI
0
0.05
S3
270
297443
232
1.20
871
NAI
0
0.04
44
200
145099
123
0.82
437
NAI
0
0.04
32
130
49:99
99
0.7J
345
0.55
240
0.12
51
47
22192
48
0.55
240
NAI
0
0.05
22
45
28113
79
0.53
222
0.34
142
0.14
59
42
25932
44
0.48
190
NAI
0
0.05
20
5}
20197
-------
TABLE B-7
IB RILE CREEK STUD*
MTE:
IUY (1)
LOCATION:
PEHDUTOK-CLEHSBN IMTP
STATION
MTE
TlltE
BOTTLE NO
TIME
FLON (K6D)
FLOW (CFS)
T-P (Hfi/L)
CP-OOl
5V12-1J
1055-1055
1-5
0
0.43
0.67
0.22
CP-OOl
3/11
1655
6
6
0.40
0.62
2.20
CP-OOl
5/11
2255
7
12
0.64
0.99
5.10
CP-OOl
5/U
0455
e
IB
0.45
0.70
27.00
CP-OOl
5/14
1055
9
24
0.51
0.79
6.90
CP-OOl
5/14
1655
10
30
0.50
0.77
4.20
CP-OOl
5/14
2255
11
36
0.46
0.71
6.S0
CP-OOl
5/15
0455
12
42
0.21
0.32
7.00
CP-OOl
5/15
1055
13
48
0.35
0.54
4.20
CP-001
5/15
1655
14
54
0.40
0.62
5.20
Cf-OOl
5/15
2255
15
60
0.40
0.62
1.90
CP-OOl
5/U
0455
16
66
0. IB
0.2B
1.40
CP-OOl
5/U
1055
17
72
0.50
0.77
5.10
CP-OOl
5/U
1655
18
78
0.50
0.77
18.20
CP-001
5/U
2255
19
B4
0.70
1.08
17.50
CP-OOl
5/17
0455
20
90
0.40
0.62
10.60
CP-001
5/17
1055
21
96
0.40
0.62
i.:-o
CP-OOl
5/17
1655
22
102
0.40
0.62
1.93
CP-001
5/17
2255
23
108
0.40
0.62
1.20
CP-001
5/18
0455
24
114
0.40
0.62
2.70
(HB/LJ
TKN UB/DI
N03 (IIS/LI
NQ3 (LB/D)
NH3 ING/L)
NH3 (LB/D)
TSS ttlG/L 1
TSS (LB/D!
0.45
2
0.46
1.65
0.37
1
31
Ill
21.00
70
0.05
0.17
16.00
53
7
23
20.00
107
0.05
0.27
18.00
96
B
43
100.00
375
0.05
0.19
IB. 00
68
780
2927
20.00
B5
0.05
0.21
14.50
62
73
310
17.00
71
0.05
0.21
14.20
59
11
46
18.00
69
0.05
0.19
15.50
59
IB
69
18.00
32
0.05
0.09
14.00
25
15
26
20.00
SB
0.05
0.15
13.00
38
7
20
19.00
63
0.06
0.20
15.00
50
10
33
21.00
70
0.05
0.17
16.50
55
11
37
21.00
32
0.05
O.OB
15.10
23
10
15
19.00
79
0.05
0.21
17.50
73
10
42
100.00
417
0.05
0.21
15.00
63
860
3470
B2.00
479
0.05
0.29
12.00
70
620
3620
40.00
133
0.05
0.17
12.00
40
fcOO
2i)02
18.00
to
0.05
0.17
12.00
40
IB
to
17.00
57
0.05
0.17
12.50
42
42
140
17.00
57
0.05
0.17
12.00
40
8
71
17.00
57
0.05
0.17
12.50
42
8
27
(LB/M
1
7
27
101
29
18
25
12
12
17
6
2
21
76
102
35
4
6
4
9
-------
TABLE B-8
II Kill CREEK STUBV
KITE:
Mr (2)
LOUTlUt:
Nl STATION
STATION
DATE
nit
MTTLE NO
TINE
STME (FT) FUN (CFS)
T-P Mfi/L)
T-P (LI/I)
l-P (N6/U
l-P (LI/1)
UH (KG/LI
TKN (Ll/D)
M)3 (H6/L)
*03 (Ll/D)
NH3 1B6/LI
NH3 (Ll/D)
TSS (ItG/L)
TSS (LI/8)
EC-t
5/11
U13-2315
l-J
0
0.90
48.00
0.14
31
.057
21
4.47
244
0.92
337
0.04
22
52
19059
EC-I
S/19
0513
<
6
0.17
4S.80
0.13
46
.038
13
0.54
199
0.92
326
0.05
IB
55
19506
K-l
a/i*
1113
5
12
o.n
71.90
0.14
34
.044
17
0.42
240
0.97
376
0.05
19
75
29066
EC-I
3/19
1713
t
11
1.20
94.40
0.20
102
.082
42
0.74
377
1.00
310
0.14
71
140
713B5
EC-i
S/19
2313
7
24
1.36
112.BO
0.20
122
-
0
0.74
450
0.91
553
0.05
30
124
75391
K-l
sm
0515
1
30
1.30
105.60
0.22
123
-
0
0.B6
489
0.85
434
0.05
28
110
62610
EC-I
5/20
1113
9
36
1.31
106.80
0.17
98
.009
5
0.47
384
0.84
484
0.05
29
too
57563
EC-I
5/20
1715
10
42
1.46
126.00
0.24
163
.073
50
0.84
584
0.92
625
0.06
41
90
41123
£C-t
3/20
2313
a
48
1.40
144.90
0.24
190
.928
22
1.00
792
0.92
728
0.21
146
100
79179
K-l
5/21
0515
12
34
1.90
204.40
0.26
284
.022
24
0.85
9J4
0.85
936
0.05
55
120
132204
EC-I
5/21
1113
13
M
1.93
211.20
0.28
319
.023
24
1.00
1128
0.79
899
0.06
46
150
170755
K-l
3/21
1715
14
46
1.35
139.10
0.23
172
.022
14
0.78
585
0.80
600
0.07
52
80
59980
EC-I
5/21
2315
15
72
1.33
111.40
0.20
120
.012
7
0.69
415
0.80
481
0.10
40
140
94244
tt-1
5/22
031S
16
78
1.21
103.30
0.16
89
.015
8
0.67
373
o.ea
490
0.06
33
too
55679
£C-I
5/22
1115
17
84
1.25
104.00
0.14
84
.104
54
0.40
-rit
0.88
474
0.05
27
90
465 :C
ec-1
5/22
1713
18
90
1.17
91.40
0.17
84
.008
4
0.65
321
0.90
444
0.05
25
90
44435
U-l
5/22
2315
19
%
1.20
94.40
0.15
76
.005
J
0.60
306
0.B5
413
0.05
15
14
4BI>;0
ec-i
5/23
0313
20
102
1.28
103.30
0.15
84
.007
4
0.59
329
0.85
473
0.05
28
97
54008
tt-i
5/23
1113-2315
21-22
108
1.15
19.40
0.13
63
.007
3
0.52
251
0.77
372
O.uS
24
B1
39118
-------
TABLE B-9
IB RIU CREEK STUDY
BATE: Ml (21
STATION MTE
LOCATION: PENIH.ET0IKIEI1S0* HTP
TINE BOTTLE M TINE FUN (NED) FLOW ICFS) T-P (Itfi/U T-P (L8/DI B-f (N6/LI 8-P ILB/D) UN IHS/L) Tf.N ILB/D) NO] MB/LI HQ3 ILB/D) NH3 IK8/L) NH3 ILB/Di TSS .116/1) T5S (LB/0)
CP-MI
5/16
1055-2255
1-3
0 0.40
0.62
3.00
10
4.07
H
21.00
70
0.45
1.50
11.70
39
28 ¦
94
CP-OOl
5/1?
0455
4
6 0.31
0.4B
2.90
7
5.24
14
23.00
59
0.45
1.16
13.50
35
28
72
CP-OOl
5/1?
1055
5
12 4.31
0.4B
3.40
9
5.1
13
24.00
62
0.43
l.U
12.00
21
15
39
CP-OOl
5/19
1655
6
IB 0.63
0.99
2.90
16
-
0
22.00
119
0.40
2.17
14.00
76
24
128
tP-OOl
5/1?
2255
7
24 0.7B
1.21
4.60
30
6.1
40
18.00
117
0.49
3.19
14.50
*4
48
313
CP-OOl
5/20
0455
8
30 0.4J
0.97
15.60
82
14.93
78
55.00
289
0.52
2.73
17.50
12
570
2980
CP-OOl
5/20
1453
10
34 0.55
0.B5
3.50
16
4.93
23
12.00
55
0.12
0.55
11.00
SO
4
27
CP-OOl
5/20
2255
11
42 0.70
1.08
2.00
12
.81
5
17.00
99
0.33
1.93
10.70
62
2
12
CP-OOl
5/21
0455
12
48 0.22
0.34
2.00
4
.21
• 0
13.00
24
0.06
0.11
10.90
20
2
4
CP-OOl
5/21
1055
13
54 0.25
0.3?
2.00
4
.44
1
16.00
33
0.06
0.13
9.00
19
16
34
CP-OOl
5/21
1655
14
60 0.2S
0.39
1.50
3
.77
2
13.00
27
0.13
0.27
7.50
16
IB
38
CP-OOl
5/21
2255
15
66 1.03
1.59
1.10
9
.52
4
10.00
86
0.05
0.43
e,5o
73
2!
180
CP-OOl
5/22
0455
16
72 0.48
0.74
2.40
10
9.16
37
?.:o
37
0.05
0.20
7.50
30
24
94
CP-OOl
5/22
1055
17
78 0.30
0.46
3.40
9
4.28
11
11.00
28
0.37
0.93
7.50
1?
21
52
CP-OOl
5(22
1655
IB
84 0.55
0.85
2.50
11
3.66
17
1B.00
83
0.37
1.70
8.00
37
24
110
CP-OOl
5/22
2255
1?
90 0.5B
0.90
1.70
8
.83
4
15.00
73
0.37.
1.79
9.00
44
24
116
CP-001
5/23
0455
20
94 0.45
0.70
2.30
9
4.13
15
16.00
to
0.48
1.80
8.50
22
24
98
CP-OOl
5/23
1055-1455
21-22
t02 0.40
0.62
3.00
10
4.27
14
10.00
33
0.45
1.50
1.00
30
29
97
-------
TABLE B-10
mmie
CKEK STUM
bate:
MY (C)
LOMTIW:
FEMLETM-ClEftSQK WTP
STIT1QK
MTE
TIME
IQTTLE Ml FUN (IBB)
FUM (CFS)
T-P (HB/L)
T-P
B-P INS/LI TKK IHS/LI
CMOi
5/17-10
tlM-UM
C 0.4#
0.42
1.00
3.34
18
TABLE B-ll
II NILE
CKEK STUIY
M1E:
m
LOCATim:
VEST flEl# MAUttGE
sitiin
MTE
Tll€
T-P lltS/U i-f IHG/U
TM IM/L)
HD3 mil)
w3 mil)
TSS IHG/LI
CFI-1
3/16
122*
0.47 .13
3.00
1.00
t.»
31}
CHH
3/20-24
1200-1400
1.00 .43
0.»8
1.45
0.36
23
11 lit! CKEK STUB*
TABLE B-12
MTE:
June
locatiom:
PEttBLETM'CLEItSOH WTP
sunn
MTE
TIRE
FLW (MfiBI FLO# ICFE)
TSS 1H6/II »0B3 mil)
CP-MI
7/4-7
0«00-0800
0.41 O.W
20
2
it 0.04 0.20 14 47 6 20 7 23
-------
TABLE B-13
II IDLE CKEEK STUtf
MTE: JUNE (WEI LOT ion: tt STftTIW
snriON
MTE
TIDE
STAGE (FT) FLO*
(CFS1
H> (MS/O
B-P (NS/L)
TKN (HG/L)
N03 (HG/L1
NH3 ING/LI
TSS (NS/L)
11.21
4/1
1233
o.oa
.007
0.34
0.17
0.13
11
*1.2
4/1
1230
0.03
.004
0.23
0.08
0.10
2
tt-i
3/31
1343
0.78
St. to
0.20
.073
0.2B
0.34
0.43
20
£C-2
5/31
140?
0.78
59.40
o.2r
.078
0.24
0.73
0.43
37
EC-I
5/31
1438
0.71
51.40
0.24
.09)
0.51
0.49
0.41
41
EH
3/31
1322
0.78
59.40
0.20
.122
0.32
0.49
0.27
41
£C-i
3/31
1415
0.78
39.40
o.ia
.142
0.23
0.71
0.32
37
EC-4
3/11
1904
0.78
39.40
0.14
•0B4
0.23
0.40
0.12
15
EC-7
3/31
2124
0.78
59.40
0.11
.119
0.54
0.14
0.48
17
f-1
3/31
1333
0.02
.002
O.U
3.90
0.04
4
CP-MI
3/31
1320
4.40
2.59
29.00
0.23
19.00
15
-------
TABLE B-14
19 RILE CREEK STUDY
MTE:
JUHE-lUL* M LOCATION: tt STillQK
STATION
MTE
TIME
KITTLE M
TIDE
STME (FT! FLO* (CFS1
T-P (N8/L1
T-P (LI/81
l-P (US/LI
8-P (LI/11
TKd (Iffi/U
TKK (LB/07
*03 (K6/L1
*03 (LI/81
KH3 (US/1)
NH3 IL8/5)
TSS IHB/L)
TSS (LI/1)
£C-I
4/W
!U«
I
0
0.38
47.«
0.44
11?
.4?
124
1.40
361
0.75
193
0.70
181
5B
14958
a-t
4/30
173#
2
4
0.58
47.85
0.44
113
.55
142
1.45
426
0.74
191
0.50
129
43
11089
EC-1
6/JO
2330
J
12
0.5?
48.38
0.54
144
.752
1%
2.20
574
0.74
193
0.50
130
57
14663
EC-1
7/1
0510
4
ia
0.70
54.40
0.28
B2
.10?
32
1.22
359
0.72
212
0,23
68
no
32371
EC-1
7/1
1130
5
24
t.Ol
74.78
0.28
114
.24
108
0.87
360
0.89
368
O.OB
33
160
66219
EC-I
7/1
1730
i
30
1.03
78.4?
0.32
135
.774
327
0.95
402
0.78
330
0.31
111
150
63461
EC-I
7/1
2310
7
34
0.83
42.99
0.30
102
.135
44
0.B9
302
0.56
190
0.37
126
120
40743
EC-1
111
0330
8
42
0.75
57.49
0.21
45
.05
14
1.00
311
0.58
180
0.31
96
79
24252
EC-I
7/2
1710
10
54
0.65
51.48
0.22
41
.144
44
0.64
224
0.63
175
0.45
125
54
15041
EC-I
7/2
2530
U
40
0.44
51.11
0.22
41
.138
38
0.93
256
0.69
190
0.33
105
50
13774
EC-1
7/3
0530
12
72
0.42
50.00
0.16
49
.11
51
1.21
324
0.54
144
0.31
64
44
11858
II Rlti COS STUD*
TABLE B-15
MTE:
imt-iuLi touTim: temum-aaem me
SIMM
MTE
TIME
BOTTLE *0
TIKE
FLOW (1161)
fLN tCfS)
T-P lltt/L)
T-P (LB/81
l-P IHS/U
l-P (LI/1)
TKN (B6/U
TKN (LB/01
tttn (us/Li
NQ3 (LB/Dl
«H3 (M/LI
NH3 (LB/11
TSS IK6/LI
TSS ILB/D)
tr-ooi
6/30
1100
1
0
-
0.00
15.20
0
-
0
46.00
0
0.06
0.00
28.00
0
31
0
CP-001
4/30
1710
2
4
-
0.00
17.80
0
-
0
26.00
0
7.40
0.00
t?.
-------
TABLE B-16
11 hue cua sua*
MU: UVEItUR lit LOCAIIfl*: MATER OUfttll* STATION MID LAKE HMHiltlL
stmim
un
Tittf
srm ini nut
ICfS)
T-P ins/D
» p m/u
M tHS/LI
mi (H6JL)
HH3 IHB/LI
TSS IH£/L)
M.I
um
1932
0.17
.128
0.45
0.45
0.44
15
*2.5 14')
nm
1322
0.03
.007
0.50
0.06
0.09
4
*2.5 tin
ll/U
1120
0.07
.042
0.70
0.20
O.lt
10
EC-1
11/13
1223
1.12
tt.it
0.21
.149
0.45
0.45
0.17
94
tt-I
It/13
1245
1.14
68.5?
0.27
.231
1.00
B. 32
0.2S
85
tt-J
11/13
1310
I.U
90.54
0.28
.225
0.90
0.47
0.21
110
EC-5
11/13
1421
1.20
94.43
0.11
.224
0.02
0.50
0.23
100
tt-4
11/13
MSB
1.21
47.81
0.30
.214
0.65
0.52
0.23
110
tt-J
11/13
1514
1.24
9B.B9
0.34
.216
1.10
0.47
0.10
130
K-«
11/13
1538
1.28
103.34
0.34
.239
1.00
0.50
0.34
120
-------
TABLE B-17
u «iu ckei stud*
DATE: NOVEMBER WTP LOCATION: CLEItSON-PENOLETttN IWTP
stition
MTE
THE
KITTLE NO
THE
FUN 1116!) I
T-P W6/U
T-P (LI/1)
TKN (R6/L)
TKN (LB/1)
K03 (Nfi/L)
N03 (L8/D)
NH3 (116/1)
KH3 (LB/DI
TSS (NG/L)
TSS (LB/41
cr-Mt
11/14
1234
1
1
4.M
14.60
47
23.M
81
0.31
1.00
10.00
32
8
26
CMOi
11/14
13 JO
2
2
t.M
13.00
42
24. M
78
O.OB
0.26
21.00
68
12
39
CP-601
U/14
14J4
I
3
0.33
4.80
24
26.00
77
0.08
0.24
14.00
56
10
JO
CP-001
11/14
1530
4
4
4.33
8.70
26
25.00
74
0.07
0.21
19.00
56
12
36
cp-mi
11/14
1630
3
3
0.S2
7.70
22
20.00
56
0.07
0.20
17.00
48
4
25
CF-081
11/14
1730
i
i
4.44
6.80
18
23.00
66
0.07
0.18
16.00
42
10
26
CP-Mi
11/14
1B30
7
7
0.48
6.30
16
24.00
62
0.07
0.1B
16.00
41
12
31
CP-Oti
it/14
im
8
B
0.30
3.70
15
26.00
70
0.07
0.14
18.00
44
4
24
CP-Mi
U/14
2430
4
4
0.31
3.20
15
23.00
71
0.07
0.20
17.00
44
9
26
IP-OOi
11/14
2130
10
10
0.33
4.70
14
26.04
77
0.07
0.21
16.00
47
12
3b
CP-Mi
U/14
2219
11
U
0.62
4.30
14
23.M
84
0.07
0.23
20.00
67
4
30
CP-Mi
it/14
2330
12
12
0.63
4.M
14
21.00
74
0.07
0.23
if. oa
67
11
39
CP-Mi
U/14
0030
13
13
0.60
3.80
12
22.00
71
0.07
0.23
16.00
52
14
45
CP-Mi
11/14
0130
14
14
0.30
3.40
4
23.00
62
0.07
0.1?
14.00
38
11
JO
CP-MI
U/15
0230
13
15
4.43
3.30
B
22.00
53
0.07
0.17
18.00
44
10
24
CP-Mi
11/13
0334
16
14
4.40
3.10
7
26.00
56
0.07
0.15
15.00
32
10
22
CP-MI
U/13
0430
17
17
0.40
2.40
6
26.00
56
0.07
0.15
14.00
30
8
17
CP-Mi
11/13
0330
11
IB
0.61
2. B0
4
33.00
115
0.10
0.33
20.00
66
9
30
CP-Mi
11/13
out
14
14
0.70
2.70
10
24.00
41
0.07
0.26
14.00
53
9
34
CP-MI
U/13
0730
24
24
0.63
2.60
4
24.00
84
0.07
0.25
17.00
60
9
32
CP-Mi
U/13
0630
2t
21
0.83
2.30
11
25.00
115
0.07
0.32
14.00
87
to
46
CP-Mi
U/13
0934
22
22
0.73
2.50
10
21.00
85
0.07
0.28
16.00
65
17
69
CP-Mi
U/13
1030
23
23
0.65
2.30
8
21.00
74
0.07
0.25
19.00
67
7
25
CP-MI
U/13
tin
24
24
0.60
2.30
7
20.00
65
0.07
0.23
14.00
45
7
23
CP-Mi
U/13
1230
25
25
4.32
2.20
6
20.00
56
0.07
0.20
15.00
42
7
20
CP-Mi
U/13
1339
26
26
0.53
2.20
7
16.00
47
0.07
0.21
15.00
44
5
15
CP-Mi
11/13
1430
27
27
o.ss
2.24
7
21.00
62
0.07
0.21
17.00
50
10
30
CP-Mi
U/13
1530
21
28
0.33
2.40
7
20.00
5?
0.10
0.30
12.00
36
S
24
1*-!
U/i4
1230
1
1
4.M
CM
U/13
0830
2
2
2.20
CM
U/13
0430
I
3
4.70
tr-i
U/13
1034
4
4
6.60
CM
U/13
1130
3
3
4.60
SM
U/13
1234
6
6
4.10
CM
11/13
1334
7
7
3.34
CM
11/13
1434
I
1
3.40
CM
U/13
1530
4
4
3.20
-------
FIGURE B-l
H
2.0-
1.5-
M—i
-
1.0-
CD
OJO
0.5-
ctf
-4-J
CO
0.0-
18 Mile Creek Study
EC-1 03/19/83 - 03/24/83
Flow
-i—i—|—i—i—i—|—i—|—i—r
12 24 36 48 60 72
Time (hr)
[—200
-150
-100
-50
0
w
<+-H
o
£
o
m i.o-
i—< 0.8*
taoo.6-
lo.4.
d, 0.2-
I
E-h o.o-
Total Phosphorus
1—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—r
0 12 24 36 48 60
Time (hr)
T
72
p500
-400
-300
rO
-200
-100
1
-0
1
¦
500-t
400-
CUO 300-
£
200-
CO
100-
CO
E-"
0-
Total Suspended Solids
Time (hr)
p500000
-400000
-300000
-200000
-100000
CO
CO
L-o
E-
-------
FIGURE B-2
2.0-
18 Mile Creek Study
CP-001 03/19/83 - 03/24/83
Flow
T) 1.5-
tuO
1.0-
^ 0.5-
O
E 0.0-
~i—1—i—1—i—•—i—1—i—1—r
12 24 36 48 60 72
Time (hr)
-2.5
-2.0
w
-1.5
<+-i
o
-1.0
*
p-0.5
o
1—1
L0.0
fx.,
Total Phosphorus
48
Time (hr)
Total Suspended Solids
12 24 36 48
Time (hr)
60 72
-------
FIGURE B-3
H
2.0—j
1.5-
1.0-
-------
FIGURE B-4
18 Mile Creek Study
CP-001 05/12/83 - 05/18/83
30
25
30
15
10
5
0
Total Phosphorus
12 24 36 48 60 72 64 96 108
Time (hr)
-------
FIGURE B-5
m
2.0-
1.5-
1.0-
0
tuo
0.5-
cd
-4->
•
CO
0.0-
18 Mile Creek Study
EC—1 05/18/83 - 05/23/83
Flo
m 0.5-
*r~-^ 0.4-
&0O.3-
J,as-
P-, 0.1-
E-h 0.0
i 1 i 1 i 1 i 1 i • i « i 1 i 1 i 1 r~
0 12 24 36 48 60 72 84 96 108
-250
-200
r 150
100
b-50
0
W
O
£
o
Time (hr)
Total Phosphorus
l ' I 1 I ' I 1 l 1
0 12 24 36 48
I 1 I ' I ' I ' I
60 72 84 96 108
-500
-400
xT
-300
Xl
-200
-100
Ph
1
-0
1
E-i
Time (hr)
¦
200-i
iH
150-
tU)
£
100-
CO
CO
E->
I 1 1
o o
IO
Total Suspended Solids
I ' l ' I ' I ' I ' I ¦ l ' I ' l
12 24 36 48 60 72 84 96 108
200000
— 150000
-100000 rO
-50000
0
CO
CO
Eh
Time (hr)
-------
FIGURE B-6
M 1.25-1
Tj 1*00"
B0'75
—' 0.50—
| °-25-
Pn o.oo-
18 Mile Creek Study
CP-001 05/18/83 - 05/23/83
Flow
l ' 1 ¦ 1 ' I 1 1 1 I ' I
0 12 24 36 48 60 72
I ' I ' 1
84 96 108
-3.0
m
-2.5
-2.0
w
<4—1
-1.5
o
-1.0
£
-0.5
o
pH
-0.0
Ph
Time (hr)
Total Phosphorus
' I ' I ' I ' I
46 60 72 84 96 108
Time (hr)
Total Suspended Solids
m 2oo-
m
E-i o
r-4000
-3500
-3000
-2500 \
-2000
-1500 w
'1000
•500 W
•0 EH
12 24 36 48 60 72 84 96 108
Time (hr)
-------
FIGURE B-7
m 2'
M-f
1.
—r
60
72
i-200
-150
T?
\
-100
rQ
r—1
-50
eu
1
-0
1
E-«
¦ 200-
Total Suspended Solids
-100000
150-
-80000
m
oc
-60000
£ 100-
// W
-
f-J
-40000
tT 5°-
-20000
co
E-i oJ
1 » 1 i 1 1 J 1 1 1 1 1
-0
12 24 36 48 60
Time (hr)
72
T3
\
rQ
CO
CO
E-h
-------
FIGURE B-8
18 Mile Creek Study
CP-001 06/30/83 - 07/03/83
Flow
24 36 48
Time (hr)
r 2.0
hi.5
-1.0
-0.5
73
O
£
o
f—
P>h
Total Phosphorus
Time (hr)
lOOO-i
800
Ctf) 600-
400-
CO 200-
m
E-> o
Total Suspended Solids
12 24 36 48 60
Time (hr)
-------
APPENDIX C
AREA-VOLUME DATA FOR 18-MILE CREEK ARM AT 661 msl,
HARTWELL RESERVOIR, S.C., 1983
-------
Appendix C
A r - Vcime Data tor I * >• i 1 e Cr°e< 'rr at *61 p si
-1 -j r l •- ? i 1 ^esctv'uir , S o j c n C u r o 11 n n , 1 j c i
o?7tri Area •, olu i;e
CteetJ (acres) (arres-teet)
70.11 .00 .00
69.11 .22 15.30
67.11 .48 37.43
64.11 1.55 125.92
61. 11 2.25 1n0.b<~
b 1 . 1 1 3 . 7 0 2-52.2
55.11 7.63 472.3/!
51.11 11.02 651.20
4 3.11 16.75 912.64
47.11 17.45 944.98
45.11 17.46 945.61
43. 1 1 21.18 1 15 3. 7 H
41.11 22.48 1232.55
40.11 32.31 1576.36
31.11 32.42 1580.42
23.11 47.18 1972.18
2 S . 1 1 48 .03 2001 . 23
25.11 52.01 2101.0 4
23.11 53.32 2139.35
21.61 53.35 2140.52
21.li 53.35 2140.53
19.61 66.52 2348.94
17.11 67.46 2371.95
16.11 71.20 2429.91
15.11 80.64 2548.07
14.11 81.98 2571.29
13.61 8 2.55 2577.97
12.61 85.50 2624.91
12.11 90.99 2716.61
11.11 100.02 2814.15
7.61 129.15 3001.96
7.11 129.38 3004.04
6.11 132.95 3023.74
1.11 161.48 3095.0b
-------
APPENDIX D
LIMITING NUTRIENT STATUS OF 18-MILE CREEK ARM,
HARTWELL RESERVOIR, S.C., 1983
-------
Appendix D
Limiting Nutrient Status of 18 Mile Creek Arm,
Hartwell Reservoir, South Carolina, 1983.
N+P : Optimum Ratio
P : Phoiphorous Umtttd
N : Nltrogan Umlt«d
-------
APPENDIX E
AVERAGE CORRECTED CHLOROPHYLL A FOR DEPTH INTEGRATED SAMPLES,
TSIchl AND TSIgo, 18-MILE CREEK ARM, HARTWELL RESERVOIR, S.C.,
1983
-------
i a n 1 e r. - 1
-•* r
it-itions
11 u r .
( u u / b )
>¦< t ^.
1' p v .
s i. 3; t
Of \i j t
//,
-------
Tciule E'-l
2" lor. a
1 t t: e -iUons ( uq/1.)
n / / I / M i 17.-0
w , i / • •! ^ 1J . 1 8
o / 2 1 / 8 3 3 7.23
6 /21/93 4 8.28
6/21/33 5 6.65
7 / I 9 / -M 1 3 3.10
7/19/93 I 13.9 H
7/19/93 3 11.29
7/19/93 4 8.00
7/19/93 5 7.61
8/1. 5/9 3 I 35.48
8/15/93 2 19.76
8/15/83 3 16.47
8/15/93 4 9.10
8/15/93 5 8.83
9/19/93 1 18.40
9/19/93 2 25.16
9/19/93 3 14.36
9/19/93 4 11.50
9/19/93 5 7.31
t '.1 . I CD3t .
'lev, of V a r . i > I v > • j )
1. - - . (¦ "
u . 1 ? 1.7 ,
1 . 84 25 . 5 5IJ
2.92 35.3 51
1.3 2 19.9 49
4.53 13.7 ;>L-
U.4 9 3.5 St-
2.5b 22.7 S4
0.55 5.9 51
0.59 7.8 bO
0.00 0.0 bfc
0.21 1.1 bO
0.42 2.6 58
0.36 3.9 52
0.30 3.3 52
5.79 31.5 59
0.32 1.3 b2
5.b 3 39. 2 S7
1.89 16.4 55
0.69 9.4 50
-------
\ n o 1 e
¦ ~ - 7
; "• ' i s r 0 ~ '¦ 5 \ ) ¦' ^ ~ ^
0 r t t 1 0 p s
• • » • *
>
r> r f
I'^te
1 A
2A
3 A
«»«»«•*»
4 <\
w w «• 9
5 A
*Wg.
b t .
bev.
2/21/83
9 3.0
93.0
77.0
7 3.0
84.0
10.5
> / / / / i
^3.0
1 3. n
6 7.0
5 b . 0
Si.;)
b fa . 1
1 i . ^
> / 1 ^ / M 3
'¦> i . ¦¦>
^ 2 . ()
>? 2 . 0
7 7 . 0
*0.0
3 0.4
2. 1
5 / 1 7 / fc* 3
7 7.0
6 3.0
5 7.0
51 .0
51.0
59 . K
10. «
6/21/83
63.0
54.0
4b. 0
44.0
4 4.0
5 0.0
8.4
7/19/* 3
b9. 0
56.0
5 4.0
44.0
44.0
53.4
10.3
1 / 1 5 / a 3
6 4 . 0
61.0
62.0
5 5.0
52.0
58.8
5.1
9/1 9/8 J
7 3.0
60.0
55.0
55,0
5 3.0
59.2
B . 1
Avq. :
72.9
67. 9
64.4
57.4
56.1
Std. Dev.:
7.9
13.8
15.9
13.0
13.2
\ C 0 e f.:
10.9
20.3
24.7
22.6
23.5
12.5
1 -
1^.1
1 o . -<
19.4
<3 . r>
13.7
of var .
-------
Figure E—1
O
5
ji
¦ X
£
a
2
o.
<
>.
o
2
c
3
>»
3
«*
Ol
3
5
a
to
-70
-60
-50
-40
"-70
-60
1.50
-40
~ -70
-60
-50
-40
"-70
-60
-50
-40
"-70
-60
-50
-40
"-70
-60
-50
-40
"-70
-60
-50
-40
"-70
-60
-50
-40
5A 4A 3A 2A 1A
Station
-------
Figure E-2
-------
APPENDIX F
TEMPERATURE, DISSOLVED OXYGEN, CORRECTED CHLOROPHYLL A
DEPTH PROFILES, 18-MILE CREEK ARM,
HARTWELL RESERVOIR, S.C., 1983
-------
I'aDle F-l
0 e p t n Profiles
Deacn
'J j
i e p .
CJ n 1 o r c o :.
L; ^ t e
S t 3 f ion
(ft)
( Ti 3 / L )
(C )
* ( ! J /
0 9/1 •*
1 A
. 0
b ,'jy
2b. tO
...
'¦) -4 / 1 -4
1 ^
2 . 0
5. 7i<
2 5.3 '¦»
/ i 1
2 '•
. u
T . 0 0
il. v:,
. : . " '
0 9/19
2A
3.0
b . /0
17 . 5 0
2 b . b u
09/19
2 A
&. 0
7.50
27.50
2d. 7 7
0 9/19
2A
9.0
4.90
25.40
25.16
09/19
3ft
.0
b.70
27.40
12.5b
09/19
3 A
3.0
6.50
27.40
• •
09/19
3 A
6.0
5.80
27.40
24.19
09/19
3 A
9.0
5.60
27.40
«» • m
09/19
3 A
12.0
5.50
27.3o
19.03
0 9/1 9
3 A
15.0
5.30
2 7,3 0
...
U 9 / 1 9
3 A
1 « . 0
*.20
?b . 40
!>9/l9
M
23. b
3 . b 0
2 b , 9 0
- - -
0 9/19
4 A
.0
7.90
2 7.50
1 « . i h
0 9/19
4 A
3.0
7.8 0
27.40
2 3 . c 7
0 9/19
4 A
t>. 0
...
• ¦» ¦»
21.93
09/19
4 A
9.0
6.BO
* •
1H.3&
0 9/19
4 A
12.0
3.40
27.40
19.03
09/19
4 A
15.0
2.90
27. 30
10.4b
0 9/19
4 A
19.0
...
7 . 4 H
09/19
4 A
30.0
2.60
27.20
• • •
09/19
4 A
33.0
2.60
26.80
...
09/19
4 A
35.0
2.50
26.90
09/19
4 A
40.0
...
2b. 40
09/19
4 A
43.0
...
26. 40
09/19
4 A
49.0
...
25. 90
09/19
4 A
50.0
1.70
24.50
09/19
5 A
.0
b .00
2 7.50
14.b4
0 9/19
5 A
3.0
» m m
¦r • •»
13.55
09/19
5A
6.0
• • •»
«v •» w
14.84
09/19
5 A
9.0
8.40
27.40
12.5W
09/19
5A
12.0
6.00
27.40
m» m «t
09/19
5 A
15.0
6.30
27.20
4.3 2
09/19
5 A
19.0
6.30
27.20
«P «»
09/19
5 A
21.0
5.80
27.20
5.74
09/19
5 A
24.0
5.40
27.20
09/19
5 A
27.0
5.40
27.20
1 0 . b 4
09/19
5 A
30.0
4.20
27.20
09/19
5 A
33.0
3 .BO
27.20
• « «
09/19
5 A
3b.0
...
...
09/19
5 A
40.0
4.30
2 6.50
09/19
5 A
4 7.0
4.10
25.50
7,10
09/19
5 A
50.0
.80
23.90
• m m
09/19
5 A
53.0
...
22.90
mmm
0 9/19
5 A
55.0
• • m
22.90
...
-------
1 <>
1 '-l
i 3
lb
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
1 5
1 b
I 5
1 5
1 5
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
IS
lb
15
15
15
15
15
Table p-1
Deptn Profiles
StattOI
l ¦;
1 A
1 ;V
2 A
2 A
2 A
2 A
3 A
3 A
3A
3 A
3 A
1 A
2 A
3A
4 A
4 A
4 A
4 A
4 A
4 A
4 A
4 A
4 A
4 A
4 A
4 A
4 A
4 A
4 A
4 A
4 A
5 A
5 A
5 A
5A
5 A
5 A
5 A
5 A
5 A
5 A
5 A
5 A
5 A
5 A
5 A
5 A
5 A
v. o r r e c t r i
Death 0 3 leap. Chl.oro.jny 11
(ft) ( ti g / L.) ( C) a ( u a / ( )
7. * u
2 7./ 0
3 ) . o0
3. J
7 . f; 0
il.lj
.w . -
o . c
5 . 10
/ \ o
i /.
. o
7.70
29.00
/ u . 2 b
3.3
7.50
29.00
1 7 .35
6,6
7.20
29.00
2 4 . 3 «
9.8
7.20
29.00
It.90
.0
7.50
29.20
12.77
3.3
7.20
29.20
WWW
6.6
6.80
29.20
18.0b
9.8
6.70
2 9.40
...
13.1
b . bO
2 9,10
1 b . A 2
1 o . 4
6.50
29. 20
...
19.7
5 .0 0
? * . 5 0
2 3.0
3.30
2 8.00
...
. U
6.60
2 9,20
7.7 4
3.3
6.30
29.20
...
b. 6
6.40
29.20
12.2b
9.8
5.80
29.20
W W W
13.1
4.70
29.20
1 1 .61
16.4
4.10
29.20
...
19.7
<1 .00
29.00
1 U . fa 4
23.0
<1 .00
28.50
8.2b
26.2
<1 .00
28.20
7.10
29.5
<1 .00
27.20
7.74
32.8
<1 .00
25.70
K.71
3b. 1
<1 .00
23.70
...
39.4
<1 .00
22.70
b, o j
42.7
<1 .00
21.70
www
45.9
<1.00
21.10
5.0 3
4 9.2
<1.00
2 0.00
...
52.5
<1.00
19.20
5.1b
.0
7.40
29.20
6.32
3.3
...
. » .
b.58
6.6
7.10
29.20
9.68
13.1
7.00
29.20
8.45
19.7
5.40
29.00
8.39
23.0
2.70
27.50
5.42
26.2
<1.00
28.00
5.35
29.5
<1.00
27.10
w w w
32.8
<1.00
25.50
1 .94
36.1
<1 .00
24.20
.39
39.4
<1.00
22.70
WWW
42.7
<1 .00
21.70
www
45.9
<1.00
20.70
www
49.2
<1 .00
19.70
1.23
52.5
<1.00
18.90
www
55.8
<1.00
18.20
www
57.4
<1 .00
17.70
www
-------
Table F-i
Depth Profiles
Uepth i);) Teno. Cnloro
late Station ( 11 ) C * j / L) ( C ) - (<;
C o r r e c t p r:
¦) V 1 1
/I I
;• I /1 -i 5 i\ .0 9.20 3 0 .^0 S. 1 0
0 7/1 y S-'i 9.0 o.ou B'.-.s'j
w 7 / l v 5 'i 12.0 / . o '> 2 9 . S ¦' i . 1 '»
0 7/19 5 A 13.0 2.^0 z 5 . a 0
07/1 9 5A 18. 0 1 .60 2b. 90
07/19 5A 21.0 4.40 28.00 7.68
0 7/19 5 A 24.0 2.60 27.40 14.84
07/19 5A 27.0 .40 26.50 4.19
07/19 5 A 3 0.0 .40 25.30
07/19 5A 33.0 .40 23.70
07/19 5A 35.0 .40 22.70
0 7/19 54 39.0 . 0 21.60
0 7/ 1 9 5 A 42.0 .40 20.bO
•j//H 5 A 4 5 . 0 . 40 1 9. 7 0 1.7}
0 7/ 1 9 5 A 44.0 .40 19.30
0 7/19 5A bl.O .40 18.30
07/19 5 A 53.0 .40
0 7/19 5 A 5a.0 .40 16.50 1^.9 0
-------
Taole f-1
Depth Profiles
Correct
!> e p t n
0 0
T e ti ? .
C n loro o 'i
Date
Station
(tt)
( T13/L )
(C j
a (113/
J 7 / 1 9
I *
. u
9.00
3 0.40
4 * . i "
J 1 / \ i
i;
i.O
8 .oo
J(' .
S 5. 4
0 7/ 1 ¦>
1 A
D . 1)
D . r> 1/
3 0 . J o
J . :>'/
0 7/19
1 A
9.0
4.40
2 7.70
---
07/19
2 A
.0
8,70
29.60
1 0 . y 7
07/19
2A
3.0
8.40
30.60
13.55
07/19
2 A
6.0
7.50
30.50
...
07/19
2 A
9.0
7.60
30.50
17.42
07/19
2A
12.0
3.80
30.30
11.42
07/19
2 A
14.0
.80
29.50
...
0 7/19
3 A
.0
8.HO
30.50
7 . H 0
7 / 1 ^
3 A
3.0
8 . b o
30. bo
1 0 . n -i
0 7 / 1 *
3 A
b. 0
3.40
3 0 . b 0
o 7 / 1 i
i A
9 . 0
*.2 0
3 0.53
07/19
3 A
12.0
7 .60
3 0.5 0
11.93
0 7/19
3 A
15. U
3.60
29.50
1 0 . 0 0
07/19
3 A
16.0
.65
29.50
...
07/19
3 A
21.0
.20
28.60
a.71
07/19
3 A
24.0
.20
27.60
—
07/19
4 A
.0
9.60
30.70
4.71
0 7/19
4 A
3.0
8.70
30.60
...
07/19
4 A
6.0
8.80
30.60
...
07/19
4 A
9.0
b. 70
30.60
8.77
07/19
4 A
12.0
6.50
30.50
11.93
07/19
4 A
15.0
.70
29.70
12.5b
U 7/ 1 9
4 A
18.0
.17
29.30
10.38
07/19
4A
21.0
1.50
28.30
- - -
0 7/19
4 A
24.0
.17
27.60
mm m m*
07/19
4 A
2 7.0
.00
26.60
mm m mm
07/19
4 A
30.0
.00
25.3 0
mm m mm
07/19
4 A
33.0
.00
24.30
m m m
0 7/19
4 A
36.0
.00
22.90
am m mm
07/19
4 A
39.0
.00
21.90
mm m m
07/19
4 A
42.0
.00
20.90
m m mm
07/19
4 A
45.0
.00
19.90
3.55
07/19
4 A
48.0
.00
19.40
...
07/19
4 A
51.0
.00
18.40
...
07/19
4 A
54.0
.00
17.60
...
07/19
4 A
55.0
.00
...
13.55
07/19
4 A
58.0
.00
17.50
mm m *b
-------
Table F »1
Depth Profiles
Correct?
D e ? t n
DD
1 e tv> p .
C n 1 o r o c. n s
lit. a
5 t A t i 0 1
(ft)
( T> -j / L.)
(C)
f U C"! / t
Ob/ i 1
1 *
.0
9 . ft 0
2 7 . b 'J
] S . c¦ 7
<)o/ I 1
1
3.3
"r1 . 5 0
? 7 . 5
1 - , / 1
') o / / 1
I ^
0 . 0
7. b o
1.. * r.
1 - . ! *
Ob/2 I
2 A
.0
9. a u
2 7.5 0
7.ol
06/21
2A
3.3
9.60
27.50
7.29
06/21
2 A
6.6
9.50
27 .40
5.9 3
06/21
2 A
9.8
8.90
26. BO
15,48
06/21
2 A
13.1
4.50
26.30
12.77
06/21
3A
0.0
9.20
27.50
5.87
06/21
3A
3.3
9.00
27.50
m m
0o/21
3A
5.6
8.R0
27.50
9.68
0 o/21
3A
8 . « 0
26.^0
0 b / 2 I
3 1
13.1
5.10
2 b . 1 0
...
u o / 2 1
3 A
1 b . 4
3.80
7 4 . 0
0 b / 2 1
i A
IS.7
1 . 00
2 3.9 0
...
0 o / 2 1
34
19.7
2.80
2 4.50
^. 6 f
06/21
3A
25.2
.40
23.10
13.55
06/21
4 A
.0
9.10
27.60
4.0b
06/21
4 A
3.3
9.00
27.50
0o/21
4 A
6.6
8.90
27.50
5.87
Ob/21
4 A
9.8
9.30
26.80
...
06/21
4 A
13.1
7 .00
26.40
17.74
Ob/21
4 A
16.4
4.10
25.50
Ob/21
4 A
19.7
2,40
24.60
b. lb
Ob/21
4 A
23.0
.65
23.60
8.3^
06/21
4 A
26.2
.60
23.00
w
Ob/21
4 A
29.5
.75
22.0 0
m m m
06/21
4 A
32.8
.15
21.00
3.61
06/21
4 A
36.1
.15
20.0 0
...
Ob/21
4 A
39.4
.15
18.70
2.71
06/21
4 A
42.7
.15
17.50
...
06/21
4 A
45.9
.15
16.70
...
06/21
4 A
49.2
.15
15.70
...
06/21
5 A
.0
9.40
27.60
2.49
06/21
5A
3.3
9.20
27.50
06/21
5 A
6.6
8.80
27.50
3.58
06/21
5 A
9.8
8.80
27.00
06/21
5 A
13.1
9.30
26.00
9,22
Ob/21
5 A
16.4
4.50
25.60
9.8 0
06/21
5 A
19.7
2.30
24.50
B.Ob
06/21
5 A
23.0
1.00
24.30
0o/21
5 A
26.2
4.35
2 3.00
5.16
Ob/ 2 I
5 A
29.5
3.90
22.00
06/21
5 A
32.8
2.40
21.30
.77
06/21
5 A
35.1
2.50
19.50
¦» * *
06/21
5A
39.4
l.bO
18.50
• •
06/21
5 A
42.7
1.20
17.50
W» M •
06/21
5 A
45.9
.70
16.50
1.23
Qb/2t
5 A
49.2
.70
15.60
1.10
06/21
5A
52.5
.70
15.00
m m m
06/21
5 A
59.1
.70
m m m
1.03
06/21
5 A
69.6
.70
14.00
WWW
-------
Table F-l
0 e o t r\ Profiles
i j e p t h
lO
r e fi ? .
Ciiioro-n'.
Dare
Station
*J t
I
1
( t, q / (.,)
(C J
fi I U 3 /I
):> /1 7
1 A
. 0
;. 4u
. 1 u
1 r. . 13
<>b / 1 7
1 A
i. 3
7 . 3 u
/ /. rj
1 . 4 i
) S / 1 )
1 A
b . o
b. 2 u
I 9 . 3 J
/ :< . 7
o b /1;
1 A
7.4
5.1 u
19.50
...
Ob/17
2A
.0
8.00
23.80
24.51
05/17
2A
3.3
8.00
24.20
45. 15
05/17
2 A
6.6
7.80
24.20
19.35
05/17
2A
9.8
7.20
23.90
10.64
05/17
2A
13. t
5.00
22.60
4.39
05/17
2 A
16.4
4.30
22.00
...
05/17
3 A
.0
7.SO
24. DO
...
0 b / 1 7
i A
3.3
7.60
24.00
1 H , 0 r*
0 b / I 7
* A
o . fa
7.40
k 3 . e? U
- - -
Ub/ 1 7
3 A
9 . 8
b . w 0
2 3.50
1 / . 7 :)
Ub/17
3 A
13.1
3.7 0
2 2.5 0
1 J . 3 u
05/17
3 A
1 b. 4
1 .30
21.20
15.77
05/17
3 A
19.7
.76
19.60
4.3*
05/17
3 A
2 3.0
.75
18.70
4.5?
05/17
3 A
26.2
.15
18.30
05/17
4 A
.0
9.00
23.60
8.71
05/17
4 A
3.3
9.00
23.80
b . 2 o
05/17
4 A
b. 6
9.00
23.70
m m m
05/17
4A
9.8
8.80
23.70
8.58
05/17
4 A
13.1
4.10
22.50
5.48
05/17
4 A
16.4
4.20
21.30
...
05/17
4 A
19.7
3.60
20.30
2 0.64
05/17
4A
23.0
3.80
19.40
• m m
05/17
4 A
26.2
3.90
17.60
2.39
05/17
4 A
29.5
3.90
16.50
...
05/17
4 A
32.8
4.30
15.60
2.42
05/17
4 A
36.1
4.30
15.40
...
05/17
4 A
39.4
3.40
14.90
...
05/17
4 A
42.7
2.30
14.60
1.42
05/17
4 A
49.2
2.00
14.00
...
05/17
4 A
55.8
.40
13.50
...
05/17
5 A
.0
9.10
23.70
b . 6 7
05/17
5 A
3.3
9.00
23.70
4.19
05/17
5 A
6.6
8.90
23.60
...
05/17
5 A
9.8
8.90
23.40
12.26
05/17
5 A
13.1
8.90
22.40
12.26
05/17
5 A
16.4
5.50
20.60
5.03
05/17
5 A
19.7
5.70
20.30
...
05/17
5 A
23.0
8.40
18.70
...
05/17
5 A
26.2
8.10
17.60
b.lb
05/17
5 A
29.5
6.80
lb.40
...
05/17
5 A
32.8
6.70
15.60
1.29
05/17
5 A
36.1
5.90
15.30
•
05/17
5 A
49.2
4.30
13.70
m m m
05/17
5 A
65.6
2.90
12.60
.94
05/17
5 A
68. 9
4.00
12.50
...
-------
Table F-l
Depth Frotiies
-- e o t n
Date Station (11)
lil/W 1 A .0
•J * / I i 1 .3 . 3
1 > i / 1 I ) A 3.0
0 4/12 1 A 7.9
04/12 2A .0
0 4/12 2 A 3.3
04/12 2A 6.6
0 4/12 2 A 9.8
04/12 2A 13.1
0 4/12 2 A 15.7
0 4/ 1 2 3 A .0
0 4/12 3 A j. 3
0 4/12 3 A 6.6
0 1/12 3 A 9 . H
0 4/12 3 A 13.1
0 4/ 1 2 3A lb. 4
04/12 3A 19.7
04/12 3 A 23.0
04/1 2 3 A 24.0
04/12 4 A .0
04/12 4<\ 3.3
04/12 4 A 6. b
04/1 2 4 A 9.8
04/12 4A 13.1
04/12 4 A 16.4
04/12 4A 19.7
04/12 4 A 23.0
04/12 4A 26.2
04/12 4 A 29.5
04/12 4 A 32.8
04/12 4A 39.4
04/12 4A 45.9
04/12 4A 52.5
04/12 4A 59.1
04/12 5A .0
04/12 5A 3.3
04/12 5A 6.6
04/12 5A 9.8
04/12 5A 13.1
04/1 2 5 A 16.4
04/12 5 A 19.7
04/12 5 A 23.0
04/1 2 5 A 26.2
04/12 5A 32.8
04/12 5A 49.2
04/12 5 A 65.3
( o r r p r t. e ¦:
j j I e*?. L f-l or opnvJ 1
( n 3 / 1j ) ( C ) h ( i! j / i )
7 . j 0 1 b . H ') b . ^ -r
7.20 )5.b(¦
o . " o 1 b . ? ; •
b.bO 15.60 ---
7.10 16.90 7.73
6.80 16.90
6.70 16.50
6.00 15.70
5.70 15.30
6.70 14.60 4.00
6.BO 16.70 11. 82
6.50 1b.4 0
o.OO 1 b . 3 0 - - -
b . 4 u 1 t . 1 'J - - -
d. 3 0 i 4 . b 0 - - -
& . 2 0 14.20 4 . -U
8.10 13.90
7.10 13.60
6.90 13. BO 2.5 9
8.80 16.90 10.6«
7.60 16.10
6.90 15.60
8.30 15.90
9.40 14.70
9.20 14.20 7.73
9.20 14.20
8.00 13.90 mmm
6.90 13.70
5.90 13.40
5.90 12.80 2.21
6.60 12.60
5.90 12.10
4.30 11.80 4.77
4.50 11.70
7.40 16.50 ft. 27
7.20 15.70 mmm
9.20 15.70
9.80 14.60 mmm
9.80 14.60 5.50
9.80 14.50
9.50 14.20
9.40 13.90 ---
7.60 13.6 u -mm
7.40 12.70 2.36
7.40 11.90 1.11
6.60 11.50
-------
Taole F-1
D e p t n
Profiles
C o r r f- " r. t
L-1 e p t h
03
1 fc n i o .
i' " lore 3 r. v
^ r P
> r -i t. i o -1
(ft)
C Tl^/b)
(r)
e Un/i
03/22
1 A
.0
8.70
1 2 . b J
11 . s 7
0 i / I I
1
3 . 3
s . i /
I. 1 J
¦i . 3
0 3/22
1 \
D . b
r . -3
1 1 . b J
03/22
1 A
9 . u
e . 5 0
10. 7 u
03/22
2 A
.0
8.80
13.60
14.bl
0 3/22
?A
3.3
8.60
13.bO
1 2.9U
03/22
2 A
b.6
8 .40
13.40
5.90
03/22
2 A
9.8
8.40
13.00
7.35
03/22
2 A
13.1
8.00
12.70
• • m
03/22
2 A
14.1
8.00
12.70
---
0 3/22
3 A
.0
9.00
13.70
12.64
0 3/22
3 A
3.3
<3.90
13.7.)
n . -1 3
0 3/22
3 A
b . b
8 .10
13.50
10.97
0 3/ 2 2
3 A
9.8
B.Olj
13.00
---
0 3/22
3/\
13.1
H . bO
12.90
0 3/22
3 A
lb.4
8.50
12.7 ;>
03/22
3 A
1 9.7
8.60
12.70
...
0 3/22
3 A
2 3.0
8.7 0
12. bO
mm m ™
03/22
3 A
23.6
8.70
12.60
...
03/22
4 A
.0
10.70
13.60
11.16
0 3/22
4 A
b.6
1 O.bO
12.60
12. 90
03/22
4 A
13.1
10.40
12.50
lu.00
03/22
4 A
19.7
10.00
12.50
25.80
03/22
4 A
26.2
10.00
12.50
3.10
03/22
4 A
39.4
7.70
11.60
...
0 3/22
4 A
52.5
6.90
10.50
0 3/22
4 A
57.4
5.40
10.30
m m «¦
03/22
5 A
.0
10.90
13.40
IS. Jfj
03/22
5 A
b.6
10.60
12.bO
14.67
03/22
5 A
13.1
10.60
12.50
4.45
03/22
5 A
19.7
10.50
12.50
5.59
03/22
5 A
26.2
10.40
12.30
• ••
03/22
5 A
32.8
9.60
11.ao
...
03/22
5 A
49.2
8.70
10.60
...
03/22
5 A
65.6
7.60
9.60
-------
T -3 d 1 e F - 1
J1 e p t. n f r 3 t i 1 e s
0 e o c h
O -3 t. £
.S t. 1 t 1 O -!
U t J
•>// 2 4
1 ~
. 0
¦ t / ;. i
1 ,-
3. i
0 2/24
l 4
4.9
02/24
1 A
6.6
02/24
2A
.0
02/24
2 A
3.3
02/24
2 A
6.6
02/24
2 A
9.8
0 2/24
3 A
.0
02/24
3 A
3.3
0 2/2 4
34
5.6
0 2 / 2 +
3 A
9.w
0 2/24
3 A
13.1
0 2/2 4
3 A
15.4
0 2/24
3 A
19.7
02/24
4 A
.0
02/24
4 A
3.3
02/24
4 A
6.6
02/24
4A
9.8
0 2/24
4 A
13.1
02/24
4 A
16.4
02/24
4 A
19.7
02/24
4 A
23.0
02/24
4 A
26.2
02/24
4 A
29.5
0 2/24
4 A
32.8
02/24
4 A
3 6.1
02/24
4 A
39.4
02/2 4
4 A
49.2
02/24
4 A
52.5
02/24
4 A
55.8
02/24
5 A
.0
02/24
5 A
3.3
02/24
5 A
6.6
02/24
5 A
9.8
02/24
5A
13.1
02/2 i
5 A
16.4
02/24
5 A
19.7
02/24
5 A
23.0
02/24
5 A
26.2
02/24
5 A
2 9.5
02/24
5 A
32.8
02/24
5 A
35.1
02/24
5 A
39.4
02/24
5 A
42.7
02/24
5 A
45.9
02/24
5 A
49.2
02/24
5 A
55.8
02/24
5 A
62.3
02/24
5 A
67.3
C orrect p
D:j re-ro. (';¦ i oro?hv 1 i
( -j /1. j (
. V. ' 1 ? . 0 J i i . "I /
1 / . ri 1 ) . -1 <
8.50 12.00 V.Oi
8.40 12.00 2 0.97
8.40 13.50 9.33
- - - --- 7.74
8 . 30 13 .50 8.39
8.20 13.50 10.97
8.50 14.00 10.32
8. SO 14.00 lu.i'2
8.40 14. ,) o i <). j /
A , 10 13 .5 0 r . ¦TJ
8.10 1 3. 0 J <>. j i
8 . 1 u 1 2 . 3 ;j 7.10
3.00 12.50 b.JJ
9.80 15.00 1*. 38
9.80 14.00 15.91
9.40 13.00 9.0 3
9.00 13.DO 4.7 3
9.20 12.00 5.5 9
9.00 12.00 3.«7
9.30 11.50 4.30
9.60 11.00 4.73
10.20 10.50 3.0 1
10.00 10.00 2.15
9.60 10.00 1.72
9.40 10.00
9.20 9.5 0
9.00 9.50
8.00 9.5 0
7.40 9.50
9.50 13.50 7.74
9.80 13.00 7.31
10.20 12.50 7.74
10.40 12.50 8.60
10.40 12.50 b.b8
9.60 12.00 6.HM
9.30 12.00 3.87
9.30 11.50 3.31
9.80 11.00 3.01
10.00 10.50 2.5b
10.10 10.00 2.5*
10.10 9.50
10.10 9.5 0 mmm
10.10 9.50
10.10 9.00
10.U0 9.00 ---
9.60 9.00 ---
9.10 9.00
8.00 9.00
-------
Figure F-1
Temperature (°C) Longitudinal Depth Profile, February, 1983
18 Mile Creek Embayment, Hartwell Reservoir, South Carolina
River Miles
o.o
670-
0.5 1.0 1.5
I I I | .1 I I I I I I « I I I
2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5
1 « « ¦ * » I ¦««!¦¦*¦ I
4.0
_l
A—5 A—4
A—3
A-2
A—1
WWTP
660
650
640-
c
~ 630-
"5
>
Ui
620 H
610-
600-
"tli
iio
iio
iio
i is
iio
iio
lis
lis
iio
lis
lis
lis
iio
iio
iio
iio
iio
lis
lie
tis
lis
IM
tf#
14s
lit
.*5
&
»!o
•To
i4s
lio
t£a
ilo
&
u
»!s
L5
"iJ3"
;fe
\lo
MSL
590-•
-------
Figure F-2
Temperature (°C) Longitudinal Depth Profile, April, 1983
18 Mile Creek Embayment, Hartwell Reservoir, South Carolina
River Miles
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2,0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
670-
' ' ' 1
A-3
A—2
A-1
ti<
li*
ii«
its
lis
ii«
lii
liT
it*
lii
its
it*
lit
\h
660-
640-
620-
610-
A-5 A—4 A-3 A—2 A-1 WWTP
-R3 iO *
ill i(i
li7 \tt
it* , is
it* ib
its it*
lit itt
il» il»
il* ilr
ii«
li7 lit
i£*
t£i
id*
lt7
it.
its
MSL
590-J
-------
Figure F-3
Temperature (°C) Longitudinal Depth Profile, May, 1983
18 Mile Creek Embayment, Hartwell Reservoir, South Carolina
o.o
0.5
1.5
River Miles
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
1
A—5
A—4
A-3
A—2
a—i wvfrp
660-
— "37*-
Ho
** MSL
jl7
lit
it#
ill
ti«
lit
lb
li*
ill
ife
650-
li4
til
lis
zh
d*
d!>
lis
A*
ib
J1J
tlo
640
2&3
*Sj
lit
tlT
<1.7
lf.»
if..
lis
630-
,1*
i ts
i£j
ii«
620-
it*
if.
li7
ito
610-
tls
600-
lit
lis
590-
O
>
-------
Figure F-4
Temperature (°C) Longitudinal Depth Profile, June, 1983
18 Mile Creek Embayment, Hartwell Reservoir, South Carolina
River Miles
0 0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
A—5 A—4 A—3 A—2 A-1 WWTP
650-
"ST - ~ ~~'
zfs
ifj jfj
tfja tit
lit ill
a* ti*
its >t«
ib zii
dt ito tit
x£e rf.0
zfj ifi
iti
its 1*7
lis lf»
lis 1 4j
lil it?
J Jo
jm
tM """"
i*8-
its
ifs
ifts
ifs
lf.1
>£•
ill
it*
rfl
ais
itl
lit
MSL
it#
-------
Figure F—5
Temperature (°C) Longitudinal Depth Profile, August, 1983
18 Mile Creek Embayment, Hartwell Reservoir, South Carolina
o.o
0.5
1.0
River Miles
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
670-
A
A-5
A—4
A-3
A-2
A—1
1
WWTP
-*»r-
MSL
tit
rfo
jf.7
lit
rfi
tio
i£,
li.2
tit
tto
At
jfj
tii
lit
tit
tt»
ti 0
lis
tfs
lis
li.0
lio
2tJ
lf.1
tl.1
x£s
til
ill
til
tli
xLi
11*7
lf.7
til
if.,
\ll
ito
tit
tit
660-
650
640
c
5 630
O
>
620'
610-
600-
u.r
590-J
-------
670'
660'
650-
640'
630'
620'
610
600
590
Figure F—6
Temperature (°C) Longitudinal Depth Profile, September, 1983
18 Mile Creek Embayment, Hartwell Reservoir, South Carolina
River Miles
0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
A—5 A—4 A-3 A—2 A-1 WWTP
ur •
IU
iTT
1*4-
rf*
lf.4
ifj
x!«
lf.4
rf.4
J*4
if*
zt*
ih
ill
rf#
rfi
2*4
ifj
&
zfi
iff
zfi ifi
xfi ill
iti
at* a*4
<£•
k, &
i£»
zls
-------
Figure F-7
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L) Longitudinal Depth Profile, February, 1983
18 Mile Creek Embayment, Hartwell Reservoir, South Carolina
0.0
o.s
670-
' 1 1 1 1 1
A-5 A-4
J-JU
River Miles
1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
¦ > ¦ ^ ¦ t « ¦ ^ « I ¦ « « ¦ I
i-1-
3.0
I I
J I 1
3.5
' ¦ ¦
4.0
A-3
A—2
A—1
WWTP
660*
650-
640-
C
5= 63°"
"5
>
a>
620-
610-
-ir
t*B
1&4
&
•b
w
A
i£o
ldi
id*
i&i
idle
&
Sl4
alb
&
#"o
&
M
1^2
1*4
IL2
•Tar*
&
&
a
&
8L1
<*
A
A
A
A
MSL
600-
A
590-
u
-------
Figure F-8
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L) Longitudinal Depth Profile, March, 1983
18 Mile Creek Embayment, Hartwell Reservoir, South Carolina
o.o
0.5
1.0
1.5
River Miles
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
A-5
A—4
A- 3
. A—2
l
A—1
A
WWTP
660-
""il»
t£~
a
LI
17
u
MSL
tii
ill
a
•T«
ILS
650-
&
&
&
it*
1(4
is
£»
is
640-
its
ti*
it#
14#
&
630-
A
620-
fa
610-
£>
&
£*
600-
f*
fa
590-
o
>
Ui
-------
Figure F—9
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L) Longitudinal Depth Profile, April, 1983
18 Mile Creek Embayment, Hartweli Reservoir, South Carolina
River Miles
o.o
670-
660-
650-
640-
I I I I
0.5
JU
I I I
1.0
_L_
1.5
¦ I I I
2.0 2.5
I I I.I « 1 ;
3.0
¦J 1 1 1 1 ¦ ¦
3.5
I 1 I I
4.0
JL_J
C
St 630-
~o
>
ui
620-
610-
A-5
' ~7.C'
A
u
£*
fM
f.t
A—4
A
A
«C*
A
&
it
&
A—3
"XT
&
&
A
»j
Cz
&
A—2
"Ti"
A
«3>
£7
£j
A—1
-fS'
¦ik
WWTP
lis"
600-
590J
-------
0.
670-
660-
650-
640
630
620
610
600
590-
Figure F—10
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L) Longitudinal Depth Profile, May, 1983
18 Mile Creek Embayment, Hartwell Reservoir, South Carolina
River Miles
1 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
A-5 A—4 A—3 A—2 A-1 WWTP
SUB
ft
ft
ft
ft
ft
ft
ft
ft
&
ft
ft
ft
ft
ft
ft
ft
ft
ft
ft
ft
ft
ft
ft
tfc
ft
ft
iS
ft
ft
«1s
ft ft
6 &
ft 6
&
ft
ft ID
£*
ft
ft
-------
Figure F-11
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L) Longitudinal Depth Profile, June, 1983
18 Mile Creek Embayment, Hartwell Reservoir, South Carolina
River Miles
0.0 0.5 t.O 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
A—5 A—4 A-3 A—2 A-1 WWTP
MSL
Ti
•.1
9*2
&
&
0%
9uS
rs
*
*
&
A
flUft
&
A
ft
9J
-------
670-
660-
650'
640
630<
620
610
600
590
Figure F-12
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L) Longitudinal Depth Profile, July, 1983
18 Mile Creek Embayment, Hartwell Reservoir, South Carolina
River Miles
0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
* 1 1 ' * 1 1 '1* ' 1 ' 'X' 1 ' ' ' 1 1 1 ' ' 1 1 ' ' ' ' 1 ' 1 1 ' 1
A—5 A—4. A—3 A—2 A-1 WWTP
fif
--cr
&
&
u
A
&
A
£
A
£7
&
/¦
4%
A
&
/•
A
&
t£r
&
aSb
ij»
•37
ab
&
&
04
£«
&I7
out
&
&
£4
OUB
&
&
«?4
&
flL4
A
&
&
0L4
OuO
£*
out)
flL4
eu>
-------
Figure F—13
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L) Longitudinal Depth Profile, August, 1983
18 Mile Creek Embayment, Hartwell Reservoir, South Carolina
0.0 0.5
X 1 1 I A 1 i
1.0
1 ¦ I * 1
1.5
JL
J L
River Miles
2.5
i i i I i
2.0
I
3.0
I I I I I I
3.5
I I I
4.0
_J
A—5
A-4
A-3
A—2
A—1
WWTP
•*rr
f*
&
2?7
o3>
<1*0
<1*0
-------
Figure F—14
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L) Longitudinal Depth Profile, September, 1983
18 Mile Creek Embayment, Hartwell Reservoir, South Carolina
o.o
670-
0.5
»il]
1.0
1.5
1
River Miles
2.0
L
''¦'¦I''1*'!'1'''*'!1''
2.5
J-
3.0
3.5 4.0
I I I I I I I i
A—5 A—4
A—3
A-2
A—1
WWTP
660-
650-
640-
c
£ 630-
"o
>
620-
C«
«3o
£>
£*
£*
£z
&
•15'
A
a
i*
&
u
&
&
-vr
&
£,
£»
£»
&
it
B-
&
A
u
£7
WSL
610-
600-
Ci
l?7
590—'
-------
Figure F-15
Chlorophyll a, (mq/L) Longitudinal Depth Profile, February, 1983
18 Mile Creek Embayment, Hartwell Reservoir, South Carolina
o.o
670«
0.5
JL
iiiiiiiiiiiii
1.0
L
1.5
' ' ¦ '
River Miles
2.0
1 * * ¦
2.5
-I L.
3.0 3.5
I I I I I I I L.
4.0
_l_l
A—5 A—4
A—3
A-2
A—1
WWTP
660
650-
640-
c
.2 630-
a
>
ui
620-
610-
Til
7.it
iiti
IIUJ
7.%
7.%
10-32
1S1
&
ill
1QJ7
sit
tb
itSrr
Us
3I7
f.\
3I7
6
tU
ISi
4.^3
1S1
iSi
tU
t'u
i.S
11,13
t.n
10JB7
MSL
600-
M0-»
-------
670'
660'
650
640
630
620
610
600
590
Figure F-16
Chlorophyll a, (jig/L) Longitudinal Depth Profile, March, 1983
18 Mile Creek Embayment, Hartwell Reservoir, South Carolina
River Miles
0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
A—5 A—4 A—3 A—2 A-1 WWTP
" TBT ~
i&> lit
itt
sS» t£»
TTiT
tTsi
njn
i£t
*3a
\£ut
£»
iS.
iia
MSL
-------
Figure F-17
Chlorophyll a, (/ig/L) Longitudinal Depth Profile, April, 1983
18 Mile Creek Embayment, Hartwell Reservoir, South Carolina
o.o
670-
0.5 1.0 t.5
i i I i i i i I i I i i I i i
River Miles
2.0
I i i i
2.5
L I I I
3.0 3.5
_l_
4.0
A-5 A-i
' TEST — — -\SSk-
660-
A-3
1141
A-2
-mr
A-1
-S»¦
WWTP
CTsl
650-
iS»
«Ji
640-
li.
c
.£ 630-
"5
>
Ul
620-
di
tii
i.1i
610-
4^7
600-
590-1
-------
670-
660-
650-
640-
630
620
610
600
590
Figure F—18
Chlorophyll ja (/xg/L) Longitudinal Depth Profile, May, 1983
18 Mile Creek Embayment, Hartwell Reservoir, South Carolina
River Miles
l0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
A-5 A—4 A-3 A—2 A-1 WWTP
--•*
«."i
lit
l&C
<111
1»J3
IU7
<£7
IflUM
i£h
ib
ils
«Si
ib
«S*
sit
l3*
MSL
ill tXt
iAi
•St
-------
Figure F—19
Chlorophyll a, (/xg/L) Longitudinal Depth Profile, June, 1983
18 Mile Creek Embayment, Hartwell Reservoir, South Carolina
o.o
670-
€60
650
640
0.5
* 1 ' ' 1 1 ' ' *
t.o
,i i
t.5
* ¦ 1 1 *
River Miles
2.0
~ 630-
"o
>
ui
620-
A-5
TO-'
lit
ib
A
lit
til
•57
A-4
-«sr
ib
1/74
ill
tit
sii
lh
A-3
' ~W'
A—2
2.5
I I « I I ^
A—1
3.0 3.5 4.0
' ¦ 1 ' ' ¦ ' 1 ¦ » ^ ' 1
lit
1»?71
ill
t&l
1 £77
WWTP
MSL
610-
xh
1T1
600-
ill
-------
Figure F—20
Chlorophyll a. (/wj/L) Longitudinal Depth Profile, July, 1983
18 Mile Creek Embayment, Hartwell Reservoir, South Carolina
0.0
0.5
670-
i i i i I
1.0
_J
River Miles
1.5 2.0 2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
A—5
tb
Tit
ilu
4.*!
A
A—4
A.
A—3
A
A—2
<3i
— — -jjp _ — .
I0J7-
I&t
i£»
«3r
tfjtt
11JU
11J3
itT«a
iiji
its
mE>
A-1
SIM
1U7
WWTP
MSL
620-
610-
i5i iSs
lit
i&s
590-1
-------
Figure F-21
Chlorophyll .a (jzg/L) Longitudinal Depth Profile, August, 1983
18 Mile Creek Embayment, Hartwell Reservoir, South Carolina
o.o
670-
0.5
JL
1.0
« I ¦ • I I « « » « «
River Miles
1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
» ' 1 » * I ' 1 ' ' ' 1 1 i ' * ' 1
3.5 4.0
¦ 1 ' ¦ 1 I ' 1
A—5 A—4
A-3
A—2
A-1
WWTP
660
650
640-
c
3 BSC-
'S
>
Ui
620-
' T53"'
tit
in
*A»
tSt
sXz
s3»
iJU
mT%-
lOM
/l
7*4
t.%
sSi
•Tsr-
1UM
l£a
"33s-
17^55
2C3I
lit
3123
MSL
610-
Ua
sia
3.1.
600-
590
-------
670*
660-
650-
640'
630'
620
610
600
590:
Figure F-22
Chlorophyll a, Oxg/L) Longitudinal Depth Profile, September, 1983
18 Mile Creek Embayment, Hartwell Reservoir, South Carolina
River Miles
0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
I I I I l ' ^ * 1
A—5 A—4 A—3 A—2 A-1 WWTP
"HST "" "" ~iS"" — — — — Tjar — — — — ~"i5V" — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
i&s tSki ji»
1«!m 21HII VLT!
12-M Its*
is'aj tUO
dl 1C*«s
7.41 **
IBM
-------
APPENDIX G
PHOSPHORUS LIMITED WATERS CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL AVERAGE
CONCENTRATIONS OF DEPTH INTEGRATED SAMPLES, 18-MILE CREEK ARM,
HARTWELL RESERVOIR, S.C., 1983
-------
T -i f 1 ? ' ~ 1
.) S
•. -> r ¦ i 5 1 ) ;
11 eo '-iters Z?
-¦> i r -s 1 -in
c, < l. n i o j i r 1
<' v e r ."i : J
~ n ~ ft r, t"
r ^ r i n i d r r-
r r | -, r o i r
^ f 0 <-> s ri T- ^ 1. U s
1
j L
I , • ;: I I .. HI
es?' v j]r ,
r :>; / r - J -"i i :¦ i
1 ' ' t I
C - 1 o r i
¦. ' J -
OS
"n t 9
Station
1 p^n
'• f* <\ r
----
-------
— - - " - - •
w m w • •
1
2/24
A 1
5.6067
9.45 0
1 h b . b h 7
2
2/24
A2
3.4433
4.500
1 bo.0 0 0
3
2/24
A3
3.6567
10.900
200.000
4
2/24
ft 4
21.0700
48.267
12 0.0 0 0
S
2/2-1
•1 5
5 . h 7 0 0
21.53 3
^ t- . r *• 7
n
3/ ??
'> 1
5 . 6 5 d ?
1 3 7 . / S 7
! / J . 3 i ¦*
7
3 /?
Jt ~
1 6 . 7 2 o 7
5 1.^33
r ;' . 1; - ¦ '
r-
3 / 2 ?
3
15. 4p0w
' 0 • 3 b 7
K 1 : ' i | ^
3/ ?2
a ;
13.-1' 0
i :•. 2 o '1
.
1 0
3/22
* 5
1 9 . 5 1 U 0
« . 7 0 0
•
1 1.
;/1 2
A 1
3.7267
6 5.707
f< 3 . i 3 i
1 2
4/ t 2
A?
5.4700
17.003
7 5.0 D 0
1 3
4/12
A3
7.3500
65.877
S 0 . 0<' u
J 4
4/12
A4
9.1667
4 3.230
•
J 5
4/12
A 5
6.9733
25.570
5 0 . 0 0 0
1 b
5/17
A 1
6.3233
78.007
1 0 3 . 33 3
1 7
5/17
A 2
18.0633
10.42 7
5 3.333
1*
5/17
43
11.7200
8 .643
40.000
1 9
5/17
A 4
6.7533
2.317
3 0.000
2 0
5/17
A 5
6.4533
2.010
2 3.333
21
ft/21
A 1
1 7 . R 0 3 3
24.977
9 b . 6 b 7
2 2
6/21
A2
11.18 3 3
7.053
20.0('0
2 3
6/21
A3
7.2267
1.453
•
24
6/21
^ 4
8 . 2 B 0 0
5.23 0
1 0 0 .0(10
25
6/21
AS
6.6 467
1.633
113.333
26
7/19
A I
33.0967
93.157
2 0 3.333
27
7/19
A 2
13.9767
21.767
40.000
28
7/19
A3
11.2867
9.710
4 0.000
29
7/19
A4
8.0000
2.380
20.0 00
30
7/19
A5
7.6133
1.13 3
•
31
9/15
M
35.4800
51.595
10b. 66 7
32
R/1.5
A2
19.7600
1.630
40.000
3 3
8/ 1 5
A3
16.4700
2.030
,3 0 . 00 0
3 4
-------
APPENDIX H
WATER QUALITY DATA AND PERCENT BIOAVAILABLE PHOSPHORUS OF
TOTAL PHOSPHORUS, 18-MILE CREEK ARM, HARTWELL RESERVOIR,
S.C., 1983
-------
r - •) j o - - '
v- ^ r
? "if - 1 H V ~i 1
i v i
? p n o s r- -i o r 'i
s or lot
¦3 1 -"1D5:''
r J f r
: i i -1
1 r a p *¦ r ,
~i ^ r t
¦ell -e s sr v
lor,
t K Z -> r o i
1 " -I , 1 ''
i
e r -
Jt. r
- - .¦>
1 ¦: ,
-- t- -i i -) n i.
i '' i r
b *oie :
• 1 - r . ~
c.
''-.t -1
r ;
1
2/2 1
A 1
P
A
7.10
•
1 Ml)
2
2/24
A 1
P
B
6.45
7.70
160
4
812
3
2/24
A1
P
r*
3.87
11.20
1 bO
7
0 a 0
4
2/24
A 2
P
A
3.23
4.70
1 8u
2
61 1
5
2/24
a 2
P
B
1 .94
•
180
b
1/2%
A 2
p
u
5.15
4.30
ISO
2
} 9
7
2/2 l
a 3
?
A
1.94
1 4.50
?')i;
7
2 5 3
2/2 ¦
p
P
5 . .1 6
i . S (
*
2 -> ¦'''
*
2/2*
3.-7
9.7f
2 o i;
-> i;
1 >>
? J i\
*. <
.• r'
ft
2 3.22
4 0.0i)
1 ?
' \
i < 3
1 i
?/2 l
A +
•
H-
2 3.2?
5 6 .50
1 /(>
1 1
i - i
12
IU \
A 4
/ K
16.77
41-. 3 0
UO
¦1 >
/ 5
1 3
2/2\
A5
P
A
6.45
2 3.20
110
/ 1
')^ 1
1 1
2/2 4
A 5
P
B
5.81
2 6 . b 0
so
.3 3
2 5D
1 *5
2/21
A 5
P
5.3 5
14.80
100
1 1
n 0 0
1 6
3/22
A 1
P
A
5.26
139.20
140
99
429
17
3/22
A 1
?
B
5.03
13 9.00
1 1 o
1 2 6
364
18
3/2?
A 1
P
5.68
13 3.60
12 0
1 1 1
333
19
3/22
&2
P
A
17.35
59.20
80
1 4
0 0 0
20
3/22
A 2
P
B
lo.83
61 .50
80
76
8 7 5
21
3/22
*2
P
W
16.00
6 3.00
8 0
7 8
7 50
2 2
3/22
A3
P
A
15.61
38.70
b 0
7 7
4 JO
2 3
3/22
A3
P
B
15.43
4 3.00
5 0
8 b
o o o
2 4
3/22
A 3
?
15.29
39.40
5 0
7 o
^') 0
25
3/22
A 4
D
A
14.19
6.7 0
•
26
3/22
A 4
P
14.77
11.10
•
27
3/2 2
A 4
P
v>
12.77
12.BO
•
28
3/2 I
AS
P
A
*
8.80
•
29
3/22
A5
P
B
20.96
6.50
•
30
3/22
A5
P
r*
W
16.06
10.80
•
31
4/12
M
N
A
4.27
7 2.00
110
65
455
32
4/12
A1
N
B
3.64
'48.98
SO
61
225
33
4/12
A 1
N
3.27
76.14
bO
1 2 6
900
34
4/12
A2
P
A
5.68
44.84
50
R 9
b3 0
35
4/12
A2
P
«
5.59
46.98
1 U 0
4 %
9^0
36
4/1 2
A3
P
w
5.14
49.19
•
37
4/12
A3
P
A
7.50
76.28
•
38
i/J 2
A3
? j P
-3
7.05
73.95
•
39
1/12
A 3
¦iP
w
7.50
47 .40
HO
5 '¦»
2 50
4 0
4/12
A 4
P
A
10.03
51 .40
•
41
4/12
A 4
P
8
B . 8 6
3 2.23
•
42
4/12
A 4
P
n
8.64
4 6.21
•
43
4/1 2
A5
P
A
7.05
24.88
20
124
400
44
4/12
A5
P
a
6.82
2 6.2b
30
87
533
45
4/12
A5
P
m
V
7.05
•
100
-------
TdrHe "•" 1
f4 r r
? -• * i d iv •) i l •'};• 1 o
i:- r- o s o -
or ;is of I Ota l Prostv
¦ orus,
1 X
•" 1 1 ?
" r ft c „• ;i r -i #
• -> r t
ell ^ P s
e r v tor , 5cm t
h ~ r) r o 1 1
p ^ , 1 -) * 3
e r -
" u t r
¦ 1 o r . s
! o t I ; ¦
J f r
46
5/1 7
A 1
N
A
6.64
76.44
1 0 0
7 6 . W 0
17.
5/17
A 1
B
6.6 4
5 5.60
9 0
72.8*9
48
5/17
A1
N
r%
5.69
91 .98
120
7 6.650
49
5/17
A2
P
A.
18.06
7.58
50
15. 160
50
5/1 7
A?
P
B
18.71
9.33
60
15.550
si
5/17
A 2
D
17.42
1 4.37
5 0
2 8.710
52
n/l 7
a 3
P
A
13.55
tj . 47
4 0
21.175
5 i
-i/17
A 3
o
1 u. 3 i
10.30
4 0
i 5 . ! 5
5 -+
5/17
^ 3
(-¦
U .2*
7.16
¦¦¦» (
17." "• ) J
5 •>
5/ 1 7
.1 )
P
A
7.13
2.12
31 ¦
7 . ": •? t 7
5b
5/1 7
M
P
p
b. 77
2.5 3
J (':¦
>• . J 3 4 3
5 7
5/17
A 4
P
0.39
2.30
30
7.6607
58
5/17
A3
P
A
6.0 0
2.05
2 0
1 0 . 2 5 0 0
59
5/17
A 5
P
B
6.58
2.21
3 0
7.3 6 6 7
60
5/17
A 5
P
w
6.78
1.77
2 0
8. *50 0
61
6/21
A 1
P
A
22.58
25.42
60
42.3667
62
6/21
A 1
P
8
14.38
25.14
6 0
4 1.9000
63
6/21
A1
P
16.45
2 4.37
170
14.3353
64
6/21
A2
P
A
1 1.29
7.42
20
3 7.1000
65
6/21
A2
P
0
10.97
1.58
20
7 . 9000
66
6/21
A2
P
r»
11.29
12.16
2 0
60.8 00 0
67
o/2l
A3
P
A
8.19
1 .27
•
•
68
6/21
A3
P
B
5.10
0.81
•
•
69
o/2 1
A3
P
2
8.39
2.28
•
•
71)
<5/21
A 4
P
A
7.10
5.34
2*
31.7000
71
ft/21
A 4
P
F3
6.13
4.7 7
20
2 3.^5)0
72
6/21
A 4
P
W
11 .61
4.58
260
1.7615
73
6/21
A5
P
A
7.68
1.81
20
9. 0 5 0 0
74
6/21
A5
P
8
7.10
1.44
20
7.2000
75
6/21
A 5
P
5.16
1.65
300
0.5500
76
7/19
A 1
N
A
37.41
105.47
410
25.7244
77
7/19
A 1
N
8
26.38
81.40
100
81.4000
78
7/19
A 1
M
*•»
S-
33.50
92.60
100
92.6000
79
7/19
A 2
N
A
13.55
21.51
40
53.7750
90
7/19
A2
N
B
13.87
17,07
40
42.6750
81
7/19
A 2
0*
w
14.51
26.72
40
66.9000
82
7/19
A3
P
A
14.19
7.81
4 0
1Q.5 250
33
7/19
A3
P
B
9.35
1 3.95
4 0
34.8750
84
7/19
A3
P
W
10.32
7.37
40
IF. 4250
85
7/19
A4
P
A
7.61
3.19
'20
15.9500
86
7/19
A 4
P
B
8.39
1 .95
20
9. 7500
a 7
7/1 9
A4
P
0-
•
2.00
20
10.0000
88
7/19
A5
P
A
8.13
1.26
•
•
89
7/19
A5
P
B
b.?7
1 .05
•
•
90
7/19
AS
P
7.74
1.09
•
•
-------
i -i r- l e H - 1
, er-r;r ¦> i 3 -1 v i i ¦ -10 1 D Pnosonorus or !c?ai -'w?;1: orus,
i i ? •• r c p ^ :. r •, , ¦; ---1 r t. •• 0 1 1 «(? s e r v i o r , Soot r> Z * r o ! i r h , 1
jnssr*
t 1 O ¦/< S
; 0 r 3
r f j
91
8/15
A I
92
8/15
A1
93
8/15
A 1
94
8/13
A 2
95
8/15
A2
96
8/15
A2
9 7
-< /1 5
A 3
-./IS
¦\ *
9 9
, / 1 5
•» 3
1 WO
"/IS
A 4
1 0 1
>5/15
^ 4
10 2
H/IS
A 4
103
8/15
A 5
104
8/15
A 5
105
8/15
A 5
106
9 /1 9
A 1
107
9/19
A 1
108
9/1 9
At
109
9/19
A 2
110
9/10
A2
111
9/19
A 2
112
9/19
A3
113
9/19
A 3
1 1 4
9/1 9
A J
115
9/19
A 4
116
9/19
4 4
117
9/1 9
A4
118
9/19
A 5
119
9/19
A5
.;it 1
i < j r. >-ri.Die C" 1 nt . a
M A 35.48
H H 35. 4B
N C 35.48
MP A 20.00
MP 0 19.61
HP C 19.67
P A 16.Gb
t-' :< 1 r« . 9 v.i
P C 1 O . '4
P .\ 8 . / 1
P = 9 . 1 ?
p : 4.1 ^
P A 8.51
p P 9.09
P C 8.90
A 14.19
to ft I b . 0 0
* C 25.00
¦M A 2 5 . 4 8
f'i 3 24.8 3
N C 25.16
h A 1 5 . 4 {J
* . B 19.35
f'i C 8 . 2 d
.•! A 12.90
M 3 9.35
N C 12.25
M A 8.06
to B 7.16
•
130
•
51.84
9 0
5 7 . 600 0
51.35
100
51.3500
1 .44
40
3.6000
1.72
4 0
4 . 10 0 0
2.33
4C
5.8250
2.16
3 n
7 . ) 0 n 0
/! . 0
?«.:
»- . " - 7
1 . P '1
4"
r. . M n
2. 3d
/I'.'
M . s¦¦ ¦ ' '
3. 0 5
/ ')
1 5 . '>5,11'
2.33
2C
11.-7500
1 .26
•
•
1 .37
•
•
1.47
•
•
8 3.1b
150
.4400
9 8.23
180
54.5722
1 0 1 . b 4
1 K I)
5t-.?77 8
2 5.40
7 0
3b.2857
56.49
b 0
9 4.1500
31.8b
7 0
45.514 3
7.0 7
4 0
1 7 . 6 7 5 0
13.07
4 0
3 2.r>750
7.19
4 0
17.975)
4.7 9
3 0
1 5 . 9 b b 7
5. 9 H
3 0
1 9 . 9 4 3 3
4.40
2 0
2 2.4500
6.79
30
2 2.6333
9. 88
30
32.93 3 3
-------
r a D 1 P "i ™ ?
i: p ~ o ry t
- .1
0 : 'v nj .l j ..
L e i'l as o
n o r ') s or
3 t 3 1 f'
':' O F. V : r I V.
»
i .<
i 1 a ^ r
tt v_
i r t , -] ^ r
t •. e 11 - o
servior,
5 o ij f.<~ Z
^ r o 1 if-..
1 <
- 3
- ^ - 1 0
~ t
U D -I V 1 t InD? i-^os
r -i o r u s t. o iota).
P res' r> i
'j s
0 s
Odte
o L -i r. i on
-
'¦i e a a
s t a D e v
C.v.
St ci h.r r
• i n
; n \
•< h a.] e
1
2/2 4
A 1
7
'5.906
1 .5468
26.1891
1 .0937
4.8125
7
. 0<• (
2
.18 75
2
2/24
A?
2
2.500
0.1571
6.2854
0.1111
2.3889
2
.611
0
.2222
3
2/2 4
A3
3
5.450
1.5875
29.1275
0.9165
4.2 50 0
7
. 251
3
. 0 0 0 0
4
2/24
A 4
3
40.222
6.8750
17 .0926
3.9693
33.3333
47
.08 3
1 J
.7500
5
2 / / 4
A S
3
2 3.0*7
9. 37<>?
4 0.696?
5.4151
1 4.8'ino
3 3
. / 5 o
1 ¦<
. -i 5 O 0
*3
3/2 <>
11 1
}
1 I 2 . 1 75
13.1977
I ?.0H 3
1 .1° £
5 9 . -i / " b
1 /r.
. 3r ¦
2 --
7
3/2 2
)
3
; o. s 12
/ . 3 ^ 2 5
3.1/57
1 . *0 1 3
74.
7-
. 75f
-
.7- '
»
1/22
•. <
5
3 0 . 7 V?
+. b I 4 5
5 . / 1 5 7
2 . r,t '4?
7 7 . ¦'¦i 01'
! ' 1
» 1
-¦
. -v i 1 ' ¦'
3/2 2
1
0
•
• •
•
•
•
•
•
1 u
3/22
A 5
0
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
ll
4/1 2
A I
3
8 4.527
36.7574
4 3 . 4 8 h 2
21.2219
b 1 . 2 2 b 0
1 2 h
.M0 0
6 5
.6750
12
4/12
a. 2
/.
68.3 30
30.1935
44 . 1 877
21 . 3500
4 6.980 0
8 9
.680
4 2
. 7000
13
4/12
A3
1
59.250
•
•
•
59.2500
59
.250
0
.000 0
14
4/12
A4
0
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
15
4/12
AS
2
105.967
26. 0b87
24.600b
10.4333
8 7.5333
124
.400
3 6
. 8 b 6 7
16
5/17
A 1.
3
75.32b
2.1135
2.8 05 7
1 .2202
7 2 . 8 8 8 9
7 fc
• b 5 0
3
.761 1
17
5/17
A 2
3
19.817
7.7303
39.0090
4.4631
15. 16-'»0
28
.740
1 3
.5800
18
5/17
a 3
3
21.608
3.9429
18.2471
2.27 6 4
17.900 0
25
.750
7
.8500
19
5/17
A 4
3
7.722
0.6850
8.0 708
0.3955
7.0667
8
.4 33
1
.3667
20
5/17
A 5
3
8,322
1.4419
16.3436
0.8325
7.3667
10
.250
2
.863 3
21
e> / 21
A 1.
3
32.867
16.0509
48.8354
9.2670
14.3353
42
. 3b7
2*
.0314
22
b/2l
A 2
3
35.267
26.4976
75.1350
15 . 298
2
.0056
37
9/19
A 2
3
58.650
31 ,08 b2
53.0064
17.9488
36.2857
9 4
. 15 0
57
.8643
38
9/19
A3
3
22.775
8.5750
37 .6508
4.9508
17.6750
32
.b75
1 5
.0000
39
9/19
A 4
3
19.450
3.2686
16.8050
1.8871
15.9667
22
.45 0
6
.4833
40
9/19
A 5
3
28.289
5.2239
19.4663
3.0160
22.6333
32
.933
10
.3000
-------
! I? -- 3
J.'' ^ r
1 ^
rr-?t- m oi
^ r a p v' r
V rti I -H r.1 3
¦y, . ^ r «'
1 f ^ • u •
c''.o^r3rj
1 3 - » s p r v
5 or 13ti
Lor, o r
1 r. r> s i i c
Z r ^ 1 -i r
rs ,
/ J
;j f •»_ t -K
i 3 >/ 3 i 1. a o
le -;r.:s:n
c- r ;j s f o 'i
C V - i r " S
r P t ;,
IDS
Date
IM
'•lean
w * <» tm . 1 4 7 *
7 0 . C"'W ¦
1 2»- . 3r J
->2.3 S3?1
i
4 / 1 2
s
-; .-77 •>
i i'. ! 1 5 5
3n.42b
1 1; . b 4 7 t.
¦J r> . 9 - i; ¦ ¦
1/ h. '..'
/ ; .
i
5/17
IS
2 6.^5^1
2 b . 0 7 3 '2
9 7.^02
b . 7 3 2 1
7 . (.i r 1
7f-.nV.
O 1' . 5 3 3
5
6/21
12
2 3.2095
1 9 . 3959
83.569
5.5991
0 . 5 5 i/ 0
{-< (.• . -i C 0
5 ¦). 2 5 0 '1
b
7/.19
12
39.291b
2 8.4414
7 2.386
8.2103
9. 7 SO'J
9 2.6 r0
B2..^5 00
/
8/15
11
1 5 . 4 8 B 5
19.1517
116.151
5.7744
3 . fa0 0 0
5 7.bPi.<
5 4 . 'JOOO
8
9/19
15
3 6.9398
21.3021
57.669
5.5002
1 5 . 9 ,6 H 7
9 4.150
7?.1433
-------
V^r. 1.e -*-4
r,er~arr •. jo^vai i^ols fhosnoros ot lotal f^osr^orus,
! •• • i L ¦» i-rc.»f r • , ^ r t ¦. ® 1. L -•?«? r: v i r- r , ?• ontn ~ ^ r ^ I l r - , 1 '¦'>" 3
- - I- t r> o* ¦: j o -i v -< i i a ]. e PnossnoriiS t o Total n o s ¦. < r> r ¦ j s
Ods u 'lean sti Dev C.V. Std Err v;in '•¦ax »anae
« «. mmmmrnm mmmmmmm • •«¦••• •••••••
1 95 37.5705 32.6546 86.6847 3.35029 0.55 12b.9 12b.35
-------
APPENDIX I
PERCENT DIFFERENCE, CHLOROPHYLL A EXPECTED OF CHLOROPHYLL A
OBSERVED FOR PHOSPHORUS LIMITED DEPTH INTEGRATED SAMPLES,
18-MILE CREEK ARM, HARTWELL RESERVOIR, S.C., 1983
-------
l -a b 1 e 1-1
C r 1 o r o n v \ I s • , a , 1 « i
<-- Cr-ijoro
¦o r v 11 --J - - >
j r. ^ r> x *
- 1 J -1 >/ -i i 1 r. i e
1 0 C 5 1
Nations
• • * — 9 m
t>rossnorus
^nosunorus
expected
Jaservea
uttfci pn:
1
9.45
166.667
44.12
5.81
0 . 8 6 « 3 1
2
4.50
180.000
18.90
3.44
0.81799
3
10.90
200.000
5 3.06
3.6b
0.93102
4
48.27
120.000
287.20
21.07
0.92664
S
7 1 . 5 3
9h.66 7
1 t 3 . 6 d
5 . 8 7
0 4 8 36
n
13 7.30
123.333
9 5 3.40
5 . h r.-
1
5 1.73
8 0 . J 0 0
3 7 7.29
1 b . 7 3
* 5 5 0 ^
d
1 r>. 3 7
5 0 . 0 0 0
/ 3 3.??
1 5 . '4 n
W.W.I 5 '
y
10.2 0
•
48.26
1 3 . 9 I
U . 7 11 / 1
10
8 .70
•
40. 15
1 9 . b 1
i'. 5 1 -r ' 1
11
47.00
75.000
278.48
5.47
0.98036
12
65.88
80.000
410.37
7.35
U . 9 8 2 0 9
13
4 3.28
9
253.32
9.17
0 . 9 h 3 6 0
1 4
25.57
50.000
138.52
6.97
0.94 ^ o -3
15
10.43
5 3.3 30
49.39
18.06
0.63434
16
8.64
40.000
39.90
11.72
0 . 7 0 6 2 7
17
2.32
30.000
8.83
6.75
0.23556
18
2.01
23.333
7.42
6.45
0 .13 07 3
19
24.98
96.567
134.77
1 7 . B 0
0.86 7 92
20
7.05
20.000
31.53
11.18
0.64542
21
1 .45
•
5.13
7.23
0.41765
2 2
5.23
100.000
22.40
8.28
0.63036
23
1.63
113.333
5.85
6.65
0.13481
2 4
9.71
40.000
45.62
1 1 .29
0. 752s*:
25
2.38
20.000
9.03
8.00
0.11406
26
1.13
•
3.89
7.61
0.95 630
27
1.83
40.000
6.74
19.76
1 .93175
28
2.03
30.000
7.53
16.47
I . 18 725
29
2.56
20.000
9.85
9.10
0.07 614
30
1,37
•
4.H2
8.83
0.83195
31
8.49
3 0.000
39.04
7.31
0.PI 276
* Derived from A3PT nata
Cnioropnyll a Expected) - (Chlorophyll a Observed)
** Difference =
(Cnloropnyll a Expected)
-------
I -BE, 1 e I
C'* i o r ov li -- - oectei of 3'lorcpnyii -3 jcservea tor ~ : «g st... r ,&
i v 1 r, r •; *> ' o t » ; r ^ t p "i saixles, 1 i ¦' j i a C r p ? < r ,r, hart ».- i !
¦ 'ts - r v ) i. r , j o • i " 1 r "> i. i. ^ , i -> ¦ i
r t i ill ri.i r - v.:els i ro:tu;i? tor L I ' > .i r
Dependent variaoie: yioavailaole Phosphorus
Source
• o i e 1
rror
Corrects i 1' o t a 1
OF
1
i i
3
Sum of Squares
0 . 1.3 9 1 9 H b 1
2 ¦+ tt 9 7 . U )< r? 2 n *> 4 "
^ A « * 7 . ^ / •> ; F 7 1 c.»
•^iean Souare
0 . 13 9 4 9 kV 1
" D . S ? 0 i 1 O " -t
w-tj'-iuare
0.000006
C. V .
1 4 4 . 7 7 3 a
Root VSfc
29.30051b64
hp vean
20.239354k; 4
Source
Chlorophyll a
0 d s e r v e d
DF
1
Type I SS F' value PR > F
0. 139 4 9861 0 . 0 0 0 . 9 a 9 9
Parameter
Intercept
Chlorophyll a
Qoserved
Estimate
20. 37629370
-0.01316026
T for HO:
Paraneter=0
1.70
-0.01
PR > IT I
0.0992
0.9899
Sta t.rror of
fc st imte
1 1 .96251236
1 .032 41603
-------
Taole I-J
J " I. o r o /1 l n K'y oecteo of ioi opnv 1.1 a .ijservsa tor c no sr. r> ;>r us
* i • ] r ~ ; \oi[- Int? Jriten Sables , 1 * 'lis Crea< An, Hart **1 I
¦ e ¦? = r v i r , •' 3.. t n C-it '> t i ' i a # 1 ' - *
* i j". i ci e r» t • or*el s •¦rsceciii ? tor Ail o a t *
°ependent Vsrianie: rotal Phosphorus
Source
O :i e i
-rror
^orrecte > :•*
0 . 1 3 2 rt
^"Squ^re
09^500
C. V .
67.6592
ROOt KSE
50.83455469
Total.P Mean
75.1332000U
source
^niorophyll a
0 o s e r v e a
OF
1
Type I SS R Value PR > b
b275.38381397 2.43 U.1328
Parameter
Intercept
ChioroDtiyll a
Ooserved
Est itnate
106.10157640
-3.02059775
T for HO:
Parameters
4.75
-1.56
PR > |TI
0.0001
0.1328
Sto fcrror o£
F-st inate
22.32243443
1 ,93834810
-------
V 3- 1e 1-4
i JtooAv-11 - t e i > a ~ r. i p s , 1 > j 1 ? ? r e 3 <. " r " , r t ; f-1 1
"¦ t .J ? r / J 11" , ^o111. 'i ^ ir o t i ;i i , 1 '1 i
p u ? ".'eici -roc^'iuro r or o i ! sss " i t : f-i
oeoenaent Variable: Bioavailable Phosphorus
Source
¦o'lei
r r o r
Corrected Total
l
i
4
Sut of Squares
0 . 3 0 3 b 7 9 3 H
0 . 2 3 l 7 2 0 & 2
0.53540000
•'ean Square
0.3 03m 3 -
0 .077 24(¦ V I
valiie
- > !"
i). I 4 I 7
k-Soaare
0.567201
C. V.
12.7487
Boot VSE
0.27792122
hF Mean
2. t8000000
Source
Chloropnyll a
Goserved
OF
1
Type 1 SS F Value PK > f
0.30367938 3.93 0.1417
Parameter
Intercept
Chlorophyll a
Observed
Estimate
n. 38321004
0.24313802
T for HO:
Parameter=0
0.42
1.98
PP > ITI
0.7034
0.J 417
Sta error ot
ffstimate
0.9 1465757
0.122b2l59
-------
Trie ie 1. "b
"nlororny I 1 -5 -"xoectP.i ot Z^ loroonyi 1 -3 Jo served tor ^nost. nor us
f i '-i r«n 1 nt sir e 1 Sa^o les, 1 '¦> '"lie Z r e e < •"¦¦ vr-, t- * r t /¦ p 1 l
* s s r voi r , >r»utn ~ a r o i i n^ » i * 3
-enei-)! M-, e-u • one Is ^rocenut e tor or i.ess i'ii i trfr :?
impendent variaoie: Total Phosphorus
Source
" O T ? j
- r r o r
Corrected Total
Sum of Squares
1202.62253bl7
Si44-.u0Bl.30b3
654b.630b66b0
*ea n Suuare
1 20 2 .b2 2 bib 17
17 81 .33 n 0 4 3 b t
F V s l u e
P r > r
0 . i 11 5
R"Souare
183701
2. V.
102.1113
Root VSE
42.20587688
l'otal P i-'ear-
41.33320000
Source
^hloroprwll a
Qoserved
DF
1
Type I SS F Value pr > k
1202.62253617 0.b8 0.4715
Parameter
Intercept
Chlorophyll a
Observed
Estimate
154.40500487
-15.30065018
T for HO!
parameter=0
l.ll
-0.8 2
PR > I X|
0.3474
0.4715
Stci Error of
Estimate
138.90240144
18.b21&4937
-------
r^Dle 1 -b
C " 1 o r o r; v l 1 - • v o a c r e -i o t Z h I o r o o -v/ L1 -i ?:ser v s :j tor » r' o h: i-t v $
I i t j r^ ^ r n I n r e "i r ^ r. * ~ ,s -j "> :¦ 1 e s , 1 •« • i J 5 C r e e < 1 r , •: ru r ¦ f i 1
- C 5 e r v \ l , C -i I O i i :'i a , |)ii
>r o :f l s t»r oc^-.JMrP I*or *>.
or i.&ss > i
Dependent Variaole: Bioavailaole Phosphorus
Source
• o :i e 1
c.rror
Corrected Total
4
5
Sun of Squares
0 . 3 5 1 J 9 5 I b
U.62«0Btflb
0.97948*33
"ear square
j . 3 5 1$951*
0 .1 b 7 o 2 21.' '4
u" v h 1 u e
-
u.2090
R - S g u a r e
0. 35H756
C. \/.
19.2515
Root MSE
0.39626007
(3 !¦' N1 e a n
2.05833333
Source
Chlorophyll a
Unserved
JF
Tyoe 1 SS F Value H > F
0.35139518 2.24 O.20Q0
Parameter
Intercept
Chlorophyll a
Ooserved
Es tlmate
0.13649144
0.26100162
T tor no:
Parameter=0
0.11
1.50
PR > ITI
0.9211
0.2090
Std Error of
Estimate
1 .29484047
0.17*47 195
-------
j 3 c 1 e 1.-7
'n 1 oro¦1 fi•/1 1 t -"/pactea of Znloropnyll a 3oserv?:i tor i nosi'^orns
, j f. j r a j ^a-it r f-itnr n t e ¦*, Sanroles , 1 H ¦ i L e drees. A r •? , I V : ; i [
"5 j i r 1 J n r ' i 1 ' i a i
.; m 3
- r? ' ¦¦ -J 1 -i 1 i . 1 P "i f
o i e l. b - rcce 1 u re for b i; l or i ess r i r t e r r :
°ependent variaoie: Total Pnosphorus
source
o i
f r ror
"orrectea Total
JF
\
2
4
Sun of Squares
1202.6225 3617
b344.()081 3 0o3
S546.630bb6H0
viear) Snuare
1 2. 02 . b 2 2 S 3o 1 7
!• 7 B 1 . 3 36114 ^^4
F' v a i u e
. r *
v.>P > K
0.47 IS
square
0.1 d 3 7 0 1
C. V.
10 2.1U3
Root MSE
42.2058768H
Total P vean
41.33320000
Source
^nioropnyl. L a
Observed
OF
1
Type 1 SS F Value i-k > k
1202.62253617 0.63 0.471b
Parameter
intercept
"ftloropnyll a
~oserved
Estimate
154.40500487
-15.30065018
T for HO I
Para.neter=0
l.ll
-0.82
PB > IT I
0.3474
0.4715
Std trror of
Eistinate
138.90240144
18.62164937
-------
1 ^ r> 1 e 1
!' ¦ t c r j ¦- l l ^ < j ? c t n ;i or CMoroorv-11 i rbsprve.i for f ••'Of-t ict"
i ¦¦ i t o -- -) z> -1 r - *->~.?. tr f (? "' ^ 1 r 1 p s , l >• •• f 1 » ~ r p ? < •'* r * , '•••¦irx. f !
-i e r v i r , > o •;r "> Z * roi i v., 1 y ••« i
r> "> - t t 1 ' i- i r o :¦c I s -roc *> 1 iiri? for ' s J or I gs
Oeoendent Variaole: Cnloroonyii a Observed
Source
¦ o-^e L
trrar
Corrected Iota!
3 r
1
7
-i
Sjti of Squares
0 . 7 a U 7 2 i /
1 0 •>. 0 7 4 7 2 7 1s
109.857400 0 0
llean ooua r f
!'. 7 - :<17; - /
1 5 . h 6 2 o i 2 « b
" V -i 1 )P
t \ i*>
K> r
ij . W ? 'J o
R-Square
0.007129
s- • * •
41.2190
Root "'1S £
3.94740832
Chlorophyll a
w pan
9.57666667
Source
Total Phosohorus
DF
1
Tyoe 1 SS F Value DP > v
0 . 78 31 72612 0.05 0 .62«o
Parameter
Estimate
T for HO:
Parameter=Q
PR > IT|
Stfl Frror of
fc s t. i n a t e
Intercept 9.9R293481
Total Phosohorus -0.009705R3
4.46
-0.22
0.0029
3.8 290
2.2 394 7604
0 . (> J H d 3 2 3 2
-------
Figure 1-1
Chlorophyll <3 Expected of Chlorophyll a.
Observed for Phosphorus Limited Depth
Integrated Samples, 18 Mile Creek Embayment,
Hartweil Reservoir, South Carolina, 1983
22
18-
14H
&
All Data
10-
6 -r x x x
2"I | | | I f III! I "i i i h I I I I !"
1
20
40
I 1 ' ' | I IT
100 120 140
Bioavallable Phosphorus (/ig/L)
-------
Figure 1-2
Chlorophyll q Expected of Chlorophyll a.
Observed for Phosphorus Limited Depth
Integrated Samples, 18 Mile Creek Embayment,
Hartwell Reservoir, South Carolina, 1983
All Data
210
Total Phosphorus (fig/L)
-------
Figure 1-3
Chlorophyll a Expected of Chlorophyll a.
Observed for Phosphorus Limited Depth
Integrated Samples, 18 Mile Creek Embayment,
Hartwel! Reservoir, South Carolina, 1983
£75 Percent Difference
t—p—|—i—i—|—i—r
20 40
Total Phosphorus (jig/L)
120
-------
Figure 1—4
Chlorophyll a. Expected of Chlorophyll a.
Observed for Phosphorus Limited Depth
Integrated Samples, 18 Mile Creek Embayment,
Hartwell Reservoir, South Carolina, 1983
10
9
8
7
6
6
^50 Percent Difference
i—i—i—|—i—i—i—j—i—i i } i—i i | i i i | i—i—r
1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.4 2.
Bioavailabie Phosphorus (ug/L)
-------
Figure 1—5
Chlorophyll a Expected of Chlorophyll a
Observed for Phosphorus Limited Depth
Integrated Samples, 18 Mile Creek Embayment,
Hartwell Reservoir, South Carolina, 1983
£50 Percent Difference
120
Total Phosphorus (jugA)
-------
Figure 1-6
Chlorophyll a. Expected of Chlorophyll a.
Observed for Phosphorus Limited Depth
Integrated Samples, 18 Mile Creek Embayment,
Hartwell Reservoir, South Carolina, 1983
10
9
8
7
6
6
^25 Percent Difference
Bioavailable Phosphorus Cug/L)
-------
Figure 1—7
Chlprophyll a. Expected of Chlorophyll a.
Observed for Phosphorus Limited Depth
Integrated Samples, 18 Mile Creek Embayment,
Hartwell Reservoir, South Carolina, 1983
^25 Percent Difference
120
-------
APPENDIX J
WATER QUALITY DATA FOR PENDLETON-CLEMSON WWTP AND
18-MILE CREEK, HARTWELL RESERVOIR, S.C., 1983
-------
SEE APPENDIX TABLES B-l TO B-17
-------
APPENDIX K
EXPLANATION OF PHOSPHORUS LOADING ADJUSTMENTS
-------
APPENDIX K
SUMMARY OF ADJUSTMENT CALCULATIONS
FOR T-P LOADINGS
1. ADJUSTMENT FOR SAMPLING BIAS
An estimate of the total days (based on the six hour sampling periods)
of sampling under elevated flow conditions was completed. High flows
were defined as flows which exceeded the base flow for the event by
150 percent or more.
Total Sampling Days Days > 1.5 x Base Flow Days < 1.5 x Base Flow
During Study During Study During Study
32 7.25 (23%) 24.75 (77%)
To estimate the total number of days of high or elevated flow for the
entire year (1983) a criteria of 0.30 inches of rain was used as re-
corded at the Pendleton-Clemson WWTP. The criteria of 0.30 inches
was used because this amount approximated the rainfall at which
stream flow was elevated for the April event. This is an approxi-
mation because antecedent rainfall is an important factor and the
rainfall recorded at the WWTP was assumed to represent rainfall which
occurred throughout the entire watershed.
Total Days (1983) Days >^0.30 in Rainfall (1983)
365 50 (13%)
ORIGINAL TIME WEIGHTED T-P LOADING AT EC-1 - 82.4 lb/d
Weighted high flow T-P loading » 194.4 lb/d
A. Find average T-P in lb/d for flows <1.5x base flow
(T-P lb/d for flows >1.5 x base Q) (% of flows >1.5 x base Q)
+ (T-P lb/d for flows < 1.5 x base Q) (% of flows <1.5 x base
Q) - 82.4 lb/d
(194.4 lb/d) (.23) + (X lb/d) (0.77) - 82.4 lb/d
where X - lb/d average at low flow (<1.5 x base flow)
X - 48.9 lb/d
(194.4 lb/d) (.13) + 48.9 "¦ 74.2 lb/d is average T-P loading
adjusted for sampling
where .13 equals the percentage (13%) of actual days
where high flows occurred in the basin (based on rain-
fall estimator)
-------
2. ADJUSTMENT FOR DEPOSITION/RESUSPENSION
An adjustment for deposition and resuspension of T-P between station
EC-1 (where the average T-P loadings were developed) and I^ake Station
A-l was made based on the low and high flow dye work. A stream flow
of 80 cfs was selected as the cut off between deposition (<80 cfs)
and resuspension (>80 cfs) as this slightly exceeds the velocity at
which T-P was shown to either deposit (<1.25 ft/sec) or be resuspended
(>1.25 ft/sec).
Weighted T-P in lb/d for flows >80 cfs - 119.5 lb/d
A. Find average T-P in lb/d for flows < 80 cfs:
(T-P lb/d for flows >80 cfs) (% of flows > 80 cfs) + (T-P lb/d for
flows < 80 cfs) (% of flows < 80 cfs) « 82.4 lb/d
(119.5 lb/d) (.52) + (X lb/d) (.48) - 82.4 lb/d
where X ¦ lb/d average at flows < 80 cfs
X - 42.2 lb/d
B. Find T-P (lb/d) adjusted for deposition/resuspension
(T-P lb/d for flows > 80 cfs) (10% difference between percent (23)
of sampling days at flows >80 cfs and percent (10) of days with
rainfall >0.30 in.) (15% increase in T-P due to resuspension) +
(T-P lb/d for flows < 80 cs) (10% sampling bias) (33% decrease in
T-P load due to deposition) ¦ lb/d with deposition/suspension
adjustment.
Note: The 15% increase in T-P during resuspension and 33% decrease
In FP during deposition were calculated from dye work.
(119.5 lb/d) (.4£8) (1.15) + (42.2 lb/d) (.532) (.67) - 79.4 lb/d
(decrease of 3.7% from 82.4 lb/d)
C. Find loading adjusted for sampling bias and deposition resuspen-
sion
(T-P lb/d adjusted for sampling) - (3.7% adjustment for transport)
- T-P lb/d
(74.2 lb/d) - [(74.2 lb/d) (.037)] - 71.5 lb/d
71.5 lb/d was used as the yearly average loading value for T-P
to the 18 Mile Creek arm.
-------
3. PROJECTIONS OF T-P LOADINGS FOR INCREASED FLOW AT PENDLETON-CLEMSON
WWTP
TOTAL PHOSPHORUS
A. Find the average yearly T-P concentration upstream of EC-1 based on:
1. Ail average yearly unadjusted loading of 82.4 lb/d
2. An average yearly flow of 91.4 cfs at EC-1 and 0.35 mgd at the WWTP
3. A median T-P concentration in the WWTP effluent of 4.2 mg/1
(Yearly average stream concentration in mg/1) (flow in cfs) (conversion
factor to lb/d) + (WWTP effluent concentration in mg/1) (flow in
mgd) (conversion factor to lb/d) ¦ 82.4 lb/d
(X mg/1) (91.4 cfs) (5.38) + (4.2 mg/1) (0.35 mgd) (8.34) = 82.4 lb/d
where X « average upstream T-P concentration in mg/1
X - 0.142 mg/1
¦ 142 ug/1 at EC-1
B. Find the projected T-P concentration at A-l when the flow at the
WWTP reaches 75% of the design flow.
(0.142 mg/1) (91.4 cfs) (5.38) + (4.2 mg/1) (1.0 mgd) (8.34) - lb/d at EC-1
where 1.0 mgd is 75% of design
69.8 lb/d + 35.0 lb/d - 104.8 lb/d
Assuming a median T-P of 180 ug/1 at EC-1 and an average T-P of 118
at A-l, the average yearly decrease from EC-1 to A-l is 35%.
lb/d at A-l - (104.8 lb/d) (.65)
- 68.1 lb/d
mg/1 " 68.1 lb/d
(91.4 cfs) (5.38)
- 0.138 mg/1
¦ 138 ug/1 at A-l
-------
C. Find the projected T-P concentration at A-l when the flow at the
WWTP reaches 100% of the design flow.
(0.142 mg/1) (91.4 cfs) (5.38) +¦ (4.2 mg/1) (1.35 mgd) (8.34) = lb/d at EC-1
where 1.35 mgd is 100% of design
69.8 lb/d + 47.2 lb/d = 117.1 lb/d
lb/d at A-l - (117.1 lb/d) (.65)
- 76.1 lb/d
mg/1 * 76.1 lb/d
(91.4 cfs) (5.38)
- 0.155 mg/1
= 155 ug/1 at A-l
BIOAVAILABLE PHOSPHORUS
A. Find the average B-P concentration upstream of EC-1 based on:
1. An average yearly loading of 33.8 lb/d
2. An average yearly flow of 91.4 cfs at EC-1 and 0.35 mgd at the WWTP
3. A median T-P concentration in the WWTP effluent of 4.2 mg/1
4. B-P comprising 85!? of the T-P
(X mg/1) (91.4 cfs) (5.38) + (4.2 mg/1) (.85) (0.35 mgd) (8.34) - 33.8 lb/d
where X - average upstream B-P concentration in mg/1
X " 0.0475 mg/1
¦ 48 ug/1 at EC-1
B. Find the projected B-P concentration at A-l when the flow to the
WWTP reaches 75% of the design flow.
(0.048 mg/1) (91.4 cfs) (5.38) + (4.2 mg/1) (.85) (1.0 mgd) (8.34) - lb/d at E<-1
23.6 lb/d + 29.8 lb/d - 53.4 lb/d
The weighted yearly average decrease, via the two dye studies, from
EC-1 to A-l was 23%.
lb/d at A-l - (53.4 lb/d) (.77)
- 41.1 lb/d
mg/1. - 41.1 lb/d
(91.4 cfs) (5.39)
¦ 0.084 mg/1
- 84 ug/1
-------
C. Find the projected B-P concentration at A-l when the flow to the
WWTP reaches 100% of the design flow.
(0.048 mg/1) (91.4 cfs) (5.38) + (4.2 mg/1) (0.85) (1.35 mgd) (8.34) = lb/d at E<':
23.6 lb/d + 40.2 lb/d = 63.8 lb/d
lb/d at A-l - (63.8 lb/d) (.77)
- 49.1 lb/d
mg/1 * 49.1 lb/d
(91.4 cfs) (5.38)
¦ .100 mg/1
¦ 100 ug/1 at A-l
-------
APPENDIX L
EXPLANATION OF PARTIAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SOURCE TOTAL PHOSPHORUS
AND STREAM TOTAL PHOSPHORUS LOAD
-------
APPENDIX L
EXPLANATION OF PARTIAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SOURCE TOTAL PHOSPHORUS
AND STREAM TOTAL PHOSPHORUS LOAD
The transport mode for particulate phosphorus associated with
the nine active basin point source discharges was based on stream
velocity determinations. A relationship was developed between
total phosphorus fate and velocity during the high flow dye study.
The corollary held that particulate phosphorus would deposit in
sinks whenever the stream velocity was less than 1.25 ft/sec.
Likewise a resuspension of particulate phosphorus would occur at
velocities greater than 1.25 ft/sec.
Velocity was computed using Manning's equation:
1.486 r2'3 s1/2
V = N
where: V » velocity in feet/second
N = a roughness coefficient
r ¦ hydraulic radius in feet, and
s » energy gradient (slope)
Since a stage-discharge relationship exists at long term water
quality station EC-1, stream velocity and hydraulic parameters were
determinable for any flow rate. During the basin study, the stream
flow rate at EC-1 was constant at 37.1 cfs. This flow rate is
equivalent to a velocity of 1.16 ft/sec. Manning's coefficient
was then computed as follows:
-------
where: r - .33
s ¦ 0.00144 ft/ft
V = 1.16 ft/sec, then
N - 0.023
The nine active discharges are located in the upper reach
of the basin upsteam of long term monitoring Station EC-1. The
energy gradient (slope) in these reaches is steeper; therefore,
the velocity increases. Predictive velocities for these point
source segments showed that deposition of particulate phosphorus
occurred through a 5.2 mile segment upstream of EC-1, whereas
tributary reaches and main stream segments upstream of the 5.2
mile stretch of creek had velocities sufficient to maintain par-
ticulate phosphorus in suspension.
Applying a deposition rate of 0.056 mg/L/mile, developed
during the dye study, to the basin stream segments with velocities
less than 1.3 ft/sec resulted in 2.92 lb/day deposited as sinks
along the stream bottom. This quantity of phosphorus, though not
appreciable, accounts for a portion of the difference between
source and stream total phosphorus.
* U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1986-546-922
------- |