D
H E G
I^Mr
1^.- —
PROMOTE PROTECT PROSPER
South Carolina Department of Health
and Environmental Control
^eD Sn%
# aHk ro
USSi
PRO"*4-0
The Condition of South Carolina's
Estuarine and Coastal Habitats
During 1999-2000
Summary Report
h
£ 4-
nnt(
An Interagency Assessment of
South Carolina's Coastal Zone
-------
The Condition of South Carolina's
Estuarine and Coastal Habitats
During 1999 - 2000
Summary Report
Prepared by:
R.F. Van Dolah, RC. Jutte, G.H.M. Riekerk,
M.V. Levisen, L.E. Zimmerman, J.D. Jones, A.J. Lewitus
Marine Resources Division
South Carolina Department of Natural Resources
RO. Box 12559
Charleston, SC 29412
D.E. Chestnut, and W. McDermott
Bureau of Water
South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control
2600 Bull Street
Columbia, SC 29201
D. Bearden, G.I. Scott, M. H. Fulton
Center for Coastal Environmental Health and Biomolecular Research
NOAA NOS CCEHBR Laboratory
219 Ft. Johnson Rd
Charleston, SC 29412
2002
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The South Carolina Estuarine and Coastal Assessment Program is supported through funding from several
agencies, including the South Carolina Department of Natural Resources, the South Carolina Department of Health
and Environmental Control, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development -
National Coastal Assessment Program under Cooperative Agreement R-82847201-0, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service Sport Fish Restoration Act Grant No. D70. A portion of the 1999 pilot study was supported by the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration through coordination with the NOAA-USEPA EMAP Study in the Carolin-
ian Province. The counties of Beaufort, Charleston, Georgetown and Horry also provided funding to purchase water
quality instrumentation that is a critical element of this program. Finally, staff with the USEPA NHEERL in
Corvallis, OR provided technical assistance in developing the sampling design and statistical routines used for this
program.
Graphic Design by Karen Swanson, SCDNR/MRD
This document should be cited as follows:
Van Dolah, R.F., PC. Jutte, G.H.M. Riekerk, M.V. Levisen, L.E. Zimmerman, J.D. Jones, A.J. Lewitus, D.E. Chest-
nut, W. McDermott, D. Bearden, G.I. Scott, M.H. Fulton. 2002. The Condition of South Carolina's Estuarine and
Coastal Habitats During 1999-2000: Summary Report. Charleston, SC: South Carolina Marine Resources Division.
Educational Report No. 20, 23p.
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION 1
STUDY DESIGN 1
Measurements Taken 2
FINDINGS 4
Water Quality 4
Dissolved Oxygen 5
pH 6
Nutrients 7
Biochemical Oxygen Demand 9
Fecal Coliform Bacteria 9
Integrated Water Quality Measure 10
Sediment Quality 11
Contaminants 11
Toxicity 12
Integrated Assessment of Sediment Quality 13
Biological Condition 14
Phytoplankton 14
Benthic Communities 15
Finfish and Crustacean Communities 15
Integrated Measure of South Carolina's
Estuarine Habitat Quality 17
CONCLUSIONS 21
LITERATURE CITED 22
-------
INTRODUCTION
The South Carolina Department of Natural Re-
sources (SCDNR) and the South Carolina Department
of Health and Environmental Control (SCDHEC)
initiated a major new collaborative coastal monitoring
program m 1999 entitled the South Carolina Estuarine
and Coastal Assessment Program (SCECAP). The
program also involves several federal partners, includ-
ing the US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA),
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Ocean Service (NOAA-NOS) Charleston
Laboratory, and the US Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS). The goal of SCECAP is to monitor the
condition of the state's estuarine habitats and provide
periodic reports to both coastal managers and the
public. The program collects multiple measures of
water quality, sediment quality, and biological condi-
tion at a large number of sites throughout the state's
coastal zone each year and integrates those measures
into an overall assessment of estuarine habitat condi-
tion at each site and the entire coastal zone. The
program also expands historical monitoring activities
that have primarily focused on open water habitats (e.g.
bays, sounds, tidal rivers) to include an assessment of
conditions in tidal creeks, which serve as important
nursery habitat for most of the state's economically
valuable species. Many of these tidal creeks are also
the first point of entry for upland runoff and therefore
can provide an early indication of stress related to
coastal development, agriculture and industrial activi-
ties (Holland et al., 1997; Sanger et al, 1999a,b;
Lerberg et al., 2000; Van Dolah et al, 2000).
The goal of SCECAP
is to monitor the
condition of the
state's estuarine
habitats and provide
periodic reports to
both coastal manag-
ers and the public.
This report summarizes major findings obtained
from the first two years of the program. A more
detailed technical report (Van
Dolah et al., 2002) provides
additional data on this
monitoring program that may
be useful to coastal resource
managers and scientists
conducting research in South
Carolina's estuaries. The
study results highlight the
value of evaluating tidal
creek habitats separately from
larger open water bodies due
to significant differences
observed for many of the measurements taken in each
habitat. The study also includes newly developed
integrated measures of habitat condition that have not
been used previously.
STUDY DESIGN
Approximately 60 stations were randomly selected
for sampling each year. All sites were located within
the coastal zone extending from the saltwater - fresh-
water interface to near the mouth of each estuarine
drainage basin and extending from the Little River Inlet
at the North Carolina border to the Wright River near
the Georgia border (Figure 1). The Savannah River is
not included in the SCECAP initiative, but is being
sampled by the Georgia Coastal Resources Division as
part of the USEPA National Coastal Assessment
Program.
Tidal creeks serve as important
nursery habitat for economically
valuable fish and crustacean
species.
- ¦J,,f* df
o
-------
Figure 1. Distribution of open water
and tidal creek stations sampled
throughout South Carolina's coastal
zone during 1999 - 2000.
Sampling Array
1999-2000
c.
P
0
Dq
O O
0 A
o ^ *
ay - ^
a
Station Type
O Open Water
A Tidal Creek
N
4-
About half of the stations were located in tidal
creeks and the other half were located in larger open
water bodies that form South Carolina's tidal rivers,
bays and sounds. For the purposes of this program,
tidal creeks are defined as those estuarine water bodies
less than 100 m (328 ft) in width from marsh bank to
marsh bank, with stations limited to the portion of
creeks having at least 1 m of water depth at low tide.
Using this criteria, approximately 17% of the state's
estuarine waters represent creek habitat, with the
remaining 83% representing larger open water bodies.
All stations were sampled once during the summer
months (mid June through August) for the core moni-
Both open water and tidal creek habitats are sampled
by SCECAR
tonng program described in this report. The summer
period was selected because it represents a period when
some water quality variables may be most limiting and
it is the season when many fish and crustacean species
of concern are utilizing estuaries as nursery habitat.
The sampling design used by SCECAP allows
statistical estimates of the proportion of South
Carolina's overall creek and open water habitat that
meet or don't meet defined levels of habitat quality
based on (1) state water quality criteria, (2) historical
measurements collected in the state's larger open water
bodies (SCDHEC, 1998), or (3) other thresholds
indicative of sediment contaminant levels that may
adversely affect biological condition (Hyland et al.,
1999; Van Dolah etal., 1999).
Measurements Taken
Table 1 provides a listing of the water, sediment
and biological measurements collected at each site.
The primary water quality measurements collected for
this program were: dissolved oxygen, biochemical
oxygen demand, nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus),
fecal coliform bacteria, and pH levels. These data were
compared to state water quality standards or historical
data collected by SCDHEC to provide a measure of
overall water quality condition. Other important
variables, such as temperature, salinity, total organic
o
-------
Table 1. Listing of measurements and samples collected for the South Carolina Estuarine and Coastal Assessment
Program (SCECAP).
Water Quality:
Parameter
Dissolved oxygen, temperature, salinity, pH, depth
(pH at surface only)
Dissolved oxygen, temperature, salinity, pH, depth
Secchi disk readings*
Total nitrate-nitrite, TKN, ammonia, total phosphorus
Dissolved nitrate-nitrite, organic nitrogen, ammonia,
orthophosphate and silica*
Total Organic Carbon (TOC)
Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD5)
Total alkalinity
Fecal coliform bacteria
Total cadmium, chromium, copper, iron, lead,
manganese, mercury, nickel, zinc**
Sediment Quality:
Sediment composition (% sand, silt/clay)
Porewater ammonia
Total Organic Carbon (TOC)
Metals (13)
Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs - 24)
Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs - 27)
Pesticides (21)
Sediment toxicity - Seed clam assay
Sediment toxicity - Microtox assay
Sediment toxicity - 10 day amphipod assay*
Biological Condition:
Phytoplankton concentration (Chl-a)
Phytoplankton pigment composition (HPLC)
Phytoplankton composition (microscopic exam)***
Benthic community
Finfish/crustacean community
Tissue contaminant concentrations (target finfish)
Incidence of diseases, deformities in finfish
Juvenile finfish community****
Type and Depth
instantaneous at surface, mid, bottom
continuous 25-48 hr record, bottom
instantaneous at surface
instantaneous at surface
instantaneous at surface
instantaneous at surface
instantaneous at surface
instantaneous at surface
instantaneous at surface
instantaneous at surface
composite
composite
composite
composite
composite
composite
composite
composite
composite
composite
sample
sample
sample
sample
sample
sample
sample
sample
sample
sample
instantaneous at surface
instantaneous at surface
instantaneous at surface
replicate 0.04 m2 grabs
0.5 km trawls (open water)
0.25 km trawls (creeks)
composite sample from trawls
composite sample from trawls
replicate 0.10 km sled tows (creeks)
Habitat Characteristics:
Proximity to upland development
Evidence of litter
Current weather conditions
Creek habitat characteristics****
visual assessment
visual assessment
visual assessment
GIS analysis
Expansion related to the USEPA National Coastal Assessment Program
Part of SCDHEC year-round monitoring activities at selected sites
Expansion related to the state-wide Harmful Algal Bloom Program
Expansion related to USFWS funded Tidal Creek Study
o
-------
carbon, and turbidity were also included in our assess-
ment of water quality. Some measurements included
both instantaneous and time series data.
Sediment samples were collected at every site to
provide information 011 composition, contaminant
levels, and toxicity using
multiple sediment bioassay
tests (Table 1). Bottom
dwelling invertebrates living
in the sediments (benthos)
were also evaluated as one
measure of biotic condition.
These organisms are an
important source of food for
many fish, shrimp and crab
species, and they have proven
to be a good indicator of
biotic condition related to
elevated contaminant concen-
trations and poor water
quality. A Benthic Index of
Biotic Integrity (B-IBI) developed for the southeastern
region (Van Dolah d a!.. 1999) was used as the primary
measure of biological condition for the 1999-2000
SCECAP survey.
The primary water
quality measure-
ments collected for
this program were:
dissolved oxygen,
biochemical oxy-
gen demand, nutri-
ents (nitrogen and
phosphorus), fecal
coliform bacteria,
and pH levels.
tion of a balanced aquatic community of flora and
fauna and to provide for recreation in and on the water.
Occasional short-term departures from these conditions
will not automatically result in adverse effects to the
community and these deviations may occur due solely
to natural conditions that the aquatic community is
adapted to. Therefore, one goal of SCECAP is to
provide additional data on typical conditions observed
during die summer months in South Carolina estuarine
habitats, especially in those habitats such as tidal
creeks that historically have not been sampled by
SCDHEC as part of their long-term water quality
monitoring program.
As noted previously, the six primary water quality
parameters used to develop an integrated measure of
overall water quality within the state's coastal waters
were dissolved oxygen (DO), biochemical oxygen
demand (ROD-), total nitrogen (TN), total phosphorus
(TP), fecal coliform bacteria, and pH. The oxygen
measures provide an indication of both oxygen avail-
ability (i.e. DO) and consumption (i.e. BOD,.). The
nitrogen and phosphorus measures provide the best
indication of possible nutrient enrichment (eutrophica-
tion) in our estuaries. Fecal coliform bacteria concen-
trations provide an indication of the suitability of the
Another measure of biotic condition considered in
this report was an estimate of phytoplankton concentra-
tion as a measure of how the state's waters compare to
national guidelines developed by NO A A that may be
indicative of estuarine eutrophication (effects of
nutrient enrichment). Fish and crustaceans (shrimp and
crabs) were also sampled to determine the relative
abundance, biomass, and diversity of species among the
sites sampled. As more data are collected on these
species, a SCECAP goal is to develop a second index
of biotic integrity using the fish and crustacean catch
data
FINDINGS
Water Quality
SCDHEC has developed State regulations to
protect the water quality of the state for several of the
parameters measured by the SCECAP program
(SCDHEC, 2001a). These regulations are used for
setting permit limits on discharges to waters of the
State, with the intent of maintaining and improving
surface waters to provide for the survival and propaga-
Scientists collect various measures of water quality at
each site.
water for shellfish harvesting and primary contact
recreation with regard to the amount of potentially
harmful bacteria in the water. Measures of pH provide
additional information on conditions that may be
stressful for many marine species.
Values of each water quality parameter were
compared to standards for the state's saltwaters
(SCDHEC, 2001a) where possible. Because SCECAP
©
-------
sampling is limited to a summer index period and
generally doesn't include multiple samples over time,
the data are not appropriate for use in USEPA 303(d) or
305(b) reporting requirements. Additionally, only a
few of the water quality parameters measured for
SCECAPhave state standards. When standards were
not available, values were compared to data compiled
over a 5-year period (1993-1997) by the SCDHEC
Bureau of Water in their routine statewide Fixed
Ambient Surface Water Monitoring Network
(SCDHEC, 1998). Values exceeding the 75th percentile
of all historical values reported by SCDHEC in the
state's saltwaters were considered to be evidence of
elevated concentrations; values exceeding the 90th
percentile of the historical values were considered to be
extreme concentrations. Because the SCDHEC histori-
cal database was primarily obtained from larger open
water bodies, caution should be used in interpreting
data from tidal creek sites since high or low values
observed for some parameters in that habitat may
represent "normal" conditions. In the future, the
SCECAP database will be used to identify normal
conditions in tidal creeks using protocols similar to
those described by SCDHEC (1998).
that may not necessarily occur for long time periods.
Therefore, these measurements should not be used for
regulatory purposes. However, SCECAP data do
provide useful measures of average DO concentrations
occurring in both tidal creek and open water habitats
during a period when DO levels may be limiting, and it
identifies areas within the
state where this is occurring.
Based on the state water
quality standards, average DO
concentrations > 4 mg/L are
considered to be good and
values > 5 mg/L are consid-
ered to be very good for this
time of year. Average DO
concentrations < 4 mg/L, but
> 3 mg/L are considered to be marginal (i.e. does not
meet one portion of the state standards). Average DO
concentrations < 3 mg/L are considered to be poten-
tially stressful, especially since most of the sites with
DO levels in this range had many measurements that
were < 2 mg/L, which represents very low oxygen
conditions known to be limiting to many estuarine and
marine biota.
Dissolved oxygen
(DO) is one of the
most critical water
quality parameters
measured in this
program.
This report summarizes conditions related to each
of the six primary water quality parameters used by the
SCECAP program. More detailed findings, along with
information on the other water quality parameters
measured for SCECAP, are provided by Van Dolah et
al. (2002).
Dissolved Oxygen
Dissolved oxygen (DO) is one of the most critical
water quality parameters measured in this program.
Low dissolved oxygen conditions can limit the distribu-
tion or survival of most estuarine biota, especially if
these conditions persist for extended time periods.
Dissolved oxygen criteria established by the SCDHEC
for "Shellfish Harvesting Waters" (SFH) and tidal
saltwaters suitable for primary and secondary contact
recreation (Class SA saltwaters) is a daily average not
less than 5.0 mg/L with a low of 4.0 mg/L (SCDHEC,
2001a). Tidal saltwaters suitable for primary and
secondary contact recreation, crabbing and fishing,
except harvesting of clams, mussels, or oysters for
human consumption (Class SB waters), should have
dissolved oxygen levels not less than 4.0 mg/L. Since
the SCECAP program was designed to sample only
during a summer index period when DO levels would
be at their lowest, DO measurements collected in this
program approximate short-term worst-case conditions
The primary measure of dissolved oxygen used for
SCECAP was based on a 25-hr average of measure-
ments collected every 15 minutes by water quality
meters deployed in the bottom waters of each site.
During 1999 and 2000, the average DO concentration
at open water stations was 4.9 mg/L and the average
DO concentration in tidal creek habitats was 4.1 mg/L
(Figure 2). Approximately 91% of the state's open
water habitat had good to very good DO levels which
Continuous data
collectors are
deployed for 25
hours at each
station to better
evaluate water
quality conditions
over multiple tidal
cycles.
O
-------
I
O)
E
O
Q
Average Dissolved Oxygen
6 "I
5 "
4 ~
3 ~
2 "
1 -
0
Percent of Coastal Habitat
9%
46%
Open
Creeks
Open
Creeks
45%
45%
39%
| | Poor
< 3 mg/L
I | Marginal
> 3 & < 4 mg/L
I I Good
> 4 & < 5 mg/L
| | Very good
> 5 mg/L
Figure 2. Comparison of the average dissolved oxygen concentrations observed in tidal creek and open water
habitats during 1999-2000, and estimates of the percent of the state's coastal habitat representing various DO
conditions.
should not be limiting to most species of concern.
Only 9% of the open water habitat had marginal DO
conditions and none of the open water sites had poor
DO concentrations. In contrast, only 54% of the state's
tidal creek habitat had good to very good DO condi-
tions, 39% of this habitat had marginal DO concentra-
tions, and 7% had poor DO concentrations that may be
limiting to many species.
Since tidal creek habitats generally supported a
greater density and diversity of fish and crustaceans
than the open water sites (see biological summary), DO
measures traditionally obtained by SCDHEC in larger
open water may not be indicative of stressful condi-
tions in creeks. However, creeks with poor DO levels
(< 3 mg/L on average) may not fully support biological
assemblages inhabiting those sites, especially during
periods when DO levels are less than 2 mg/L (hypoxic
conditions).
Average pH
7-8l
7.7-
7.6-
7.5-
7.4-
7.3-
7.2-
7.1-
0
x
Q.
Open
Creeks
pH
Measures of pH provide another indicator of water
quality in estuarine habitats. The pH measurements are
based on a logarithmic scale, so even small changes in
the value can result in significant stress to estuarine
organisms (Bamber, 1987, 1990; Ringwood and
Keppler, in review). Low pH values can indicate the
presence of pollutants (e.g. release of acids or caustic
materials) or high concentrations of carbon dioxide
(Gibson et cil., 2000).
Because salinity and alkalinity affect the pH of
estuarine waters, SCDHEC has established water
quality standards that account for these effects. The pH
in Class SA and SB tidal saltwaters should not vary
more than one-half of a pH unit above or below efflu-
ent-free waters in the same geologic area having a
similar salinity, alkalinity and temperature, and values
Percent of Stations
(with salinities > 18 ppt)
Open
0
14%
| | Poor
7%
Creeks
58%
0
~
35% n
<7.1
Marginal
>7.1 & < 7.4
Good
>7.4
Figure 3. Comparison of the average pH concentrations observed in tidal creek and open water habitats during
1999-2000, and estimates of the percent of the high salinity stations having poor, moderate, or good pH values.
O
-------
should never be lower than 6.5 or higher than 8.5.
Shellfish harvesting waters (SFH) shouldn't deviate
more than 0.3 units from pH levels in effluent-free
waters.
The pH measurements used to characterize each
site were collected from water quality meters deployed
for 25 hrs. There were a sufficient number of sites
having moderate to high salinities (18-40 ppt) to
establish pH criteria for the
SCECAP program. The
majority of these stations
were located in areas consid-
ered to be pristine environ-
ments (e.g. Cape Romain
National Wildlife Refuge,
North Inlet and Ashepoo,
Combahee, and Edisto
[ACE] National Estuarine
Research Reserve, and SFH
class saltwaters). Only a few
stations were sampled in 1999-2000 that had lower
salinities. These stations were not evaluated for pH
since we do not yet have a sufficient database to set
criteria for what represents good, marginal, and poor
pH levels in that salinity regime. For the SCECAP
program, pH values below 7.4 were considered to
represent marginal pH conditions and values below 7.1
represented poor conditions (see Van Dolah et al., 2002
for criteria methodology).
The 1999 - 2000 average of pFI values measured at
tidal creek stations was lower than the average pH
value measured at open water stations (Figure 3).
Low pH values can
indicate the pres-
ence of pollutants
(e.g. release of
acids or caustic
materials) or high
concentrations of
carbon dioxide.
Based on the SCECAP criteria, approximately 24% of
the open water sites sampled had marginal or poor pH
concentrations compared to about 42% of the tidal
creek sites. The pH at these stations may be causing
stress for some organisms, particularly at sites with
values <7.1.
Nutrients
Nutrient loading into estuarine waters has become
a major concern due to the rapid development that is
occurring in the coastal zone of South Carolina and
other states. This development results in increased
nutrient input from wastewater treatment facilities,
some industrial facilities, urban and suburban runoff of
fertilizers, vehicle exhaust, etc. Other sources of
nutrients include runoff from agricultural fields adja-
cent to estuarine habitats, riverine input of nutrient-rich
waters from inland areas, and atmospheric deposition.
Fligh nutrient levels can lead to enrichment or eutrophi-
cation of estuarine waters resulting in excessive algal
growth including harmful algal blooms (FLAB), de-
creased dissolved oxygen, and other undesirable effects
that adversely affect estuarine biota (Bricker et al.,
1999).
There are no State or
USEPA standards for the
various forms of nitrogen
(except ammonia) and
phosphorus in estuarine
waters. Therefore, the
SCECAP data were compar-
ed to SCDHEC's historical
database (SCDHEC, 1998)
to identify waters showing
evidence of elevated nutri-
ents. Values were also
compared with guidelines
Coastal develop-
ment results in
increased nutrient
input from wastewa-
ter treatment facili-
ties, some industrial
facilities, urban and
suburban runoff of
fertilizers, vehicle
exhaust, ....
published by NOAA for
estuarine waters (Bricker et al, 1999), although it
should be noted that those values represent dissolved
rather than total nutrient concentrations.
Water quality sampling includes instantaneous
measures of dissolved oxygen, salintiy, pH, and
temperature and water samples for laboratory
analysis.
O
-------
O)
E
1.0i
0.8-
0.6-
0.4-
0.2-
0
Total Nitrogen
Percent of Coastal Habitat
4%
Open
12%
Creeks
Open
Creeks
88%
~
Very enriched
> 1.29 mg/L
~
Moderately Enriched
> 0.95 &< 1.29 mg/L
~
Normal
< 0.95 mg/L
Figure 4. Comparison of the average total nitrogen (TN) concentrations observed in tidal creek and open water
habitats during 1999-2000, and estimates of the percent of the state's coastal habitat with TN values representing
normal or enriched values relative to SCDHEC historical data.
0.12
0.10
nr
o> 0.08 ¦
E
ST 0.06
H
0.04
0.02
0
Total Phosphorus
Percent of Coastal Habitat
Open
81%
Creeks
45%
19%
~
Very enriched
> 0.17 mg/L
~
Moderately Enriched
> 0.09 &< 0.17 mg/L
~
Normal
<0.09 mg/L
47%
Open Creeks
Figure 5. Comparison of the average total phosphorus (TP) concentrations observed in tidal creek and open
water habitats during 1999-2000, and estimates of the percent of the state's coastal habitat with TP ranges
representing normal, enriched, or highly enriched values relative to SCDHEC historical data.
The average total nitrogen (TN) concentration
measured at tidal creek sites was significantly higher
than the average concentration measured at open water
sites. Approximately 12% of the creek habitat and only
4% of the state's open water habitat had TN concentra-
tions that were considered to be enriched (Figure 4). In
2000, total dissolved nitrogen (TDN) was also mea-
sured. None of those samples had high TDN concen-
trations (> 1.0 mg/L) based on the guidelines developed
for coastal waters by NOAA (Bricker el al., 1999) and
there was no significant difference in TDN between
creek and open water sites.
The average total phosphorus (TP) concentration
measured at tidal creek sites was significantly higher
than the concentration measured at open water sites
(Figure 5). Approximately 47% of the state's tidal
creek habitat showed moderate phosphorus enrichment
and an additional 8% of that habitat was very enriched
with respect to total phosphorus. In contrast, only 19%
of the open water habitat showed moderate enrichment
and none of the sites had highly enriched phosphorus
levels. The higher phosphorus concentrations may
represent natural conditions in creek habitats since the
historical database was based on sampling in larger
open water systems. Additional data collected through
this program will help to resolve whether new guide-
lines for TP enrichment should be considered for creek
habitats. Until those data are available, the historical
SCDHEC database provides the best record of devia-
tions from normal estuarine water quality conditions.
o
-------
The average total dissolved phosphorus (TDP)
concentration measured in the creek versus open water
stations in 2000 were not significantly different. Using
the NOAA guidelines (Bricker el ctl., 1999), none of the
open water sites and only two of the creek sites were
enriched.
Biochemical Oxygen Demand
The five-day biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5)
is a measure of the amount of oxygen consumed by the
decomposition of organic matter, both natural and man-
made wastes, in the water column. Although BOD5 is
regulated by National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) permits to protect instream dissolved
oxygen, there are no freshwater or saltwater standards
for natural waters. Both the SCDHEC water quality
monitoring program and the SCECAP program include
measurements of BOD5 in
order to obtain information
on areas where unusually
high values may be occur-
ring. Average BOD5 concen-
trations sampled in 1999-
2000 were similar at creek
and open water sites (Figure
6). However, a slightly
higher percentage of the
state's tidal creek habitat had
BODc levels that exceeded
BOD is a measure
of the amount of
oxygen consumed
by the decomposi-
tion of organic
matter and can be
indicative of poor
water quality.
the 75th and 90th percentiles of historical observations
when compared to open water habitat. High BOD5
concentrations may be indicative of poor water quality.
Fecal Coliform Bacteria
Coliform bacteria are present in the digestive tracts
and feces of all warm-blooded animals. Public health
studies have established correlations between adverse
human health effects and concentrations of fecal
coliform bacteria in recreational, drinking, and shellfish
harvesting waters. State fecal coliform standards to
protect primary contact recreation require a geometric
mean count that does not exceed 200 colonies/100 mL
based on five consecutive samples in a 30 day period
and no more than 10% of the
samples shall exceed 400
colonies /100 mL. To protect
for shellfish consumption, the
geometric mean can not
exceed 14 colonies/100 mL
and no more than 10% of the
samples shall exceed 43
colonies/100 mL (SCDHEC,
1998). Since only a single
fecal coliform count was
collected at each site, compli-
ance with the standards cannot be strictly determined,
but the data can provide some indication of whether the
water body is likely to meet standards. For the
SCECAP program, we consider any sample with > 43
colonies/100 mLto represent marginal conditions (i.e.
potentially not supporting shellfish harvesting) and any
sample with > 400 colonies/100 mL to represent poor
conditions (i.e. potentially not supporting primary
contact recreation).
Coliform bacteria
levels are used to
evaluate the suit-
ability of coastal
waters for shellfish
harvesting and
primary contact
recreation.
Average BOD
O)
E
a
o
m
Percent of Coastal Habitat
17%
Open
66%
Creeks
56%
Open
Creeks
17%
23%
~
Very high
> 2.6 mg/L
~
High
> 1.8 & < 2.6 mg/L
~
Normal
<1.8 mg/L
21%
Figure 6. Comparison of the average five-day biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5) concentrations observed in
tidal creek and open water habitats during 1999-2000, and estimates of the percent of the state's coastal habitat
representing BOD5 ranges that were normal, enriched, or highly enriched values relative to SCDHEC historical
data.
O
-------
Fecal Coliform
-I
E
£
o
o
o
o
w>
o
a>
—
"E
O
o
400 colonies/1 OOmL
I | Marginal
>43 & < 400 col./100mL
| | Good
>0 <43 col./100mL
Figure 7. Comparison of the average fecal coliform concentrations observed in tidal creek and open water
habitats during 1999-2000, and percent estimates of the state's coastal habitat representing concentrations that
are acceptable (green), possibly unsuitable for shellfish harvesting (yellow), or possibly unsuitable for primary
contact recreation (red).
Average fecal coliform concentrations were higher
in creeks than in open water during 1999 - 2000
(Figure 7). Approximately 17% of the state's creek
habitat was marginal and 1% was poor with respect to
fecal coliform concentrations. In contrast, only 5% of
the open water habitat was marginal and 1% was poor.
The higher fecal coliform counts observed in creek
habitats is most likely due to the proximity of these
small drainage systems to upland runoff from both
human and domestic as well as wildlife sources,
combined with the lower dilution capacity compared to
larger water bodies. Greater protection of tidal creek
habitats is warranted in areas where upland sources of
waste can be controlled.
1999
Integrated Water Quality Measure
The integrated water quality score developed for
the SCECAP program incorporates all six of the water
quality measures described above. An explanation of
the scoring process is provided by Van Dolah et al.
(2002). Sites coding as poor (red) generally had four to
six of the individual water quality variables coding as
poor or marginal. Approximately 5% of the state's
creek habitat had poor water quality in 1999-2000,
whereas none of the open water habitat had poor water
quality (Figure 8). Sites with marginal water quality
2000
11%
c-, „ , • _ „ I— I— I— I— I— I— I— I— I— I—
Station 0:0:0:0:0:0:0:0:0:0:
Average Dissolved Oxygen
Average pH ~~~~~~~~~~¦¦
Fecal Coliform Bacteria HHIZIIZIIZIIIIIIZIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII" ¦
Biological Oxygen Demand
Total Nitrogen ~~~~~~~~~~¦¦
Total Phosphorous ~~~~~~~~~~¦¦
Integrated Score ¦~~~~~~~~~¦¦
Open
33%
Creeks
Figure 8. Proportion of the South Carolina's estuarine habitat that ranks as good (green), marginal (yellow), or
poor (red) using the integrated water quality score developed for the SCECAP program. The left portion of the
figure shows examples of how individual stations coded for each of the six water quality parameters and the
average integrated score for each station based on the combined numerical ratings of the six parameters (Van
Dolah et al., 2002). The right portion of the figure shows the estimated proportion of water quality conditions for
the entire coastal zone of the state.
©
-------
24 contaminants
are used to evaluate
for possible effects
to estuarine ani-
mals.
(yellow) generally had 2-3 parameters coding as
marginal or poor. Approximately 33% of the state's
creek habitat had marginal water quality conditions
compared to approximately 11% of the open water
habitat. The higher percentage of poor and marginal
water quality conditions in creeks indicates that these
habitats are often more stressful environments and may,
in part, reflect the relatively greater effect of anthropo-
genic runoff into these smaller water bodies due to their
proximity to upland sources and their lower dilution
capacity. However, since many of the creeks with poor
water quality were in relatively pristine locations, some
of the differences observed between creek and open
water sites may simply be the result of using thresholds
derived from SCDHEC's historic database, which is
composed predominantly of data from open water
habitats. Once a larger database is available, our
threshold criteria for some of the water quality param-
eters measured in creek habitats may be changed from
those used in this report to reflect the greater natural
variability in these habitats.
Sediment Quality
The primary measures of sediment quality used for
SCECAP include a collective measure of the concentra-
tion of 24 contaminants and results obtained from 2-3
laboratory bioassays that evaluate the toxic effects of
those sediments to both invertebrate and microbial
organisms. Other sediment characteristics also mea-
sured for the program are not summarized here, but are
available in the full Technical Report (Van Dolah el a/..
2002).
Contaminants
The 24 contaminants used to evaluate sediment
quality include both trace metals and organic com-
pounds for which there are published bioeffects guide-
lines based on laboratory and field studies of estuarine
and marine organisms (Long etal, 1995). None of the
sites sampled in 1999-2000 had contaminant concentra-
tions that exceeded values considered to be high (i.e.
cause adverse effects in at least 50% of the studies
evaluated by Long etal., 1995). However, several sites
had moderately high concentrations (i.e. cause adverse
bioeffects in at least 10% of the studies evaluated by
Long etal., 1995). More tidal creek sites had elevated
contaminants compared to the sites in larger water
bodies (15 vs 9 sites). The elevated contaminants
included arsenic, cadmium, copper, chromium, and
several polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs)
commonly associated with fuel combustion, petro-
chemical industrial effluents,
etc. Arsenic is naturally
elevated in South Carolina
estuarine sediments (Scott et
al, 1994; 2000; Sanger etal.,
1999a) and the values ob-
served cannot be attributed
solely to anthropogenic stress.
Only one site had many contaminants at levels known
to cause adverse bioeffects. Tins station was located in
the turning basin of Shipyard Creek, an industrialized
drainage basin in Charleston Harbor.
Sediments are collected to test for the presence of
contaminants and evaluate the health of bottom-
dwelling communities.
-------
Contaminants
Percent of Coastal Habitat
w
si)
>
0.058
> 0.02 & <0.058
<0.02
Figure 9. Average cumulative sediment contaminant concentrations at open water and tidal creek sites sampled
in 1999 - 2000 and the proportion of the state's coastal habitat having concentrations representing a low,
moderate, or high risk of observing stress in benthic communities.
While individual contaminants were elevated at
some sites, a better assessment of overall pollution
exposure can be derived from the combined concentra-
tions of all 24 contaminants present at a site relative to
the bioeffects guidelines for each of those contami-
nants. Hyland et a/. (1999) published sediment quality
guidelines that have been shown to be predictive of a
high, moderate, or low risk of observing adverse effects
in bottom dwelling invertebrate communities (benthos)
inhabiting southeastern estuaries. Using these guide-
lines, approximately 21% of the tidal creek habitat
assessed in 1999 and 2000
had contaminant concentra-
tions indicative of a moder-
ate risk to bottom-dwelling
assemblages (Figure 9). In
comparison, only 11% of the
open water habitat had
similar contaminant concen-
trations. In both habitats, many of these sites were in
developed watersheds. The remaining creek and open
water stations sampled in 1999 and 2000 had low
contaminant concentrations that would support a
healthy bottom community, except for Shipyard Creek,
which had a combined chemical concentration that
represented a high risk to benthic communities.
Although there are several locations in South
Carolina's estuarine waters known to be polluted, the
areal extent of these polluted areas is limited and not
likely to be routinely represented in the 60 sites ran-
Excessive contami-
nation in South
Carolina's estuarine
sediment is not
widespread.
domly selected for sampling each year. The lack of
widespread contamination in South Carolina's estuaries
is a positive indication that our estuaries are not
experiencing extensive chemical degradation. More
importantly, the SCECAP database provides valuable
information for determining whether conditions at sites
where potential human impacts are occurring are
different than typical conditions found in unimpacted
tidal creek and open water habitats.
Toxicity
Even if estuarine sediments have high contaminant
levels, the contaminants may not be available to biota
living in the sediments. Laboratory bioassays are used
Upland development can increase the risk of creating
adverse conditions in creeks or open water habitats
©
-------
14%
30%
Open
as indicators of both contaminant
bioavailability and potential for
toxicity. For SCECAP, two (1999)
to three (2000) bioassays were
conducted to test for toxicity using
marine bacteria, juvenile hard clams,
and a small sediment-dwelling
crustacean (amphipod). When two
or more of the tests showed positive
toxicity, the sediment was consid-
ered to be poor (high probability of
toxicity); one positive test indicated
marginal sediment quality and no
positive test results indicated good
sediment quality. Approximately
7% of the state's creek habitat and
14% of the open water habitat had
poor sediment considered to be
toxic, with an additional 46% and
30%, respectively, showing some evidence of toxicity
(Figure 10).
Integrated Assessment of
Sediment Quality
The best estimate of overall sediment quality
incorporates the combined measures of sediment
contaminant concentrations and the sediment bioassay
test results. An overall sediment quality score com-
puted using these measures indicated that none of the
state's tidal creek habitat sampled in 1999 - 2000 had
poor sediment quality and only about 3% of the state's
open water habitat had poor sediment quality (Figure
11). A slightly higher percentage of the state's creek
habitat had marginal sediment quality compared to
open water areas, but this difference was not signifi-
cant.
Percent of Habitat
Sediment Bioassays showing Toxicity
56%
46%
Sediment Quality
47%
Poor
Marginal
Good
Creeks
Figure 10, Summary of sediment bioassay results using multiple assays.
Two toxic assays represent poor sediment quality, one toxic assay
represents marginal sediment quality, and no toxic assays represent good
sediment quality.
1999 - 2000
Station
lO CO I— CO
£0:0:0:0:0:0:0:0:0:
Toxicity H ~~~~~~~~~
Contaminants ~ ~ ~ LJI Li Ll ~ IU
Integrated Score ~ ~ ~ ~ 11 LI LI JI
Toxicity tests are used
to determine if
sediments are
detrimental to animal
health.
Figure 11. Proportion of South Carolina's estuarine
habitat that ranks as good (green), marginal (yellow)
or poor (red) using the integrated sediment quality
score developed for SCECAR The left portion of the
figure shows examples of how individual stations
coded for each sediment quality parameter and the
average integrated
score for each
station based on
numerical ratings
described by Van
Dolah et al (2002).
The right portion of
the figure shows the
estimated
proportion of
sediment quality
conditions for the
entire coastal zone
of the state.
Open
Creeks
O
-------
Biological Condition
Phytoplankton
Phytoplankton concentrations are measured by
SCECAP in the surface waters of South Carolina's
estuaries to provide a measure of possible biological
response to enriched nutrient concentrations. Because
South Carolina does not have any water quality stan-
dards that are based on phytoplankton concentrations
(measured using chlorophyll-a pigment concentration),
SCECAP relies on guidelines that have been published
for coastal estuaries by NOAA (Bricker etal., 1999).
Using these guidelines,
approximately 13% of the
state's tidal creek habitat had
high phytoplankton concen-
trations compared to only
3% of the open water habitat
(Figure 12). The signifi-
cantly higher chlorophyll
concentrations in tidal creeks
may be reflective of the
higher nutrient concentra-
tions observed in the creeks,
or it may also reflect possible re-suspension of benthic
algal mats from the creek bottoms and marsh surfaces
that would be less likely to be present in the surface
waters of deeper, larger water bodies. Analyses con-
ducted to evaluate whether nutrient concentrations are
influencing the chlorophyll-a concentrations showed no
clear relationships with total nitrogen (TN) or total
phosphorus (TP) concentrations. A stronger relation-
Phytoplankton
concentrations . . . .
provide a
measure of possible
biological response
to enriched nutrient
concentrations.
Algal blooms can occur when nutrient concentrations
in estuaries are high.
ship between nutrient concentrations and measures of
phytoplankton concentrations may become more
evident with a larger data set that can be partitioned by
tidal stage and time of day. Additional chlorophyll-a
data collected through this study and through others
studies of harmful algal blooms currently being con-
ducted in South Carolina will provide a much better
understanding of what chlorophyll-a concentrations
represent ""cutrophic" conditions in South Carolina.
Phytoplankton Concentration
16-
O)
3
>
Q.
©
o
.c
o
Percent of Coastal Habitat
7% 3%
Open
90%
Creeks
Open
Creeks
81%
¦
Very high
> 60 |jg/L
High
> 20 & < 60 jjg/L
~
Normal
> 5 & < 20 |jg/L
~
Low
15 jjg/L
Figure 12. Comparison of the average chlorophyll-a concentrations observed in tidal creek and open water
habitats during 1999-2000, and estimates of the percent of the state's coastal habitat representing concentrations
that are indicative of possible eutrophication (dark green).
-------
Benthic Communities
Bottom-dwelling (benthic) invertebrate organisms
are important because they are near the bottom of the
food chain and are common food items for many fish
and crustacean species.
Benthic organisms are also
considered to be excellent
indicators of environmental
stress because they are
sessile and cannot easily
avoid exposure to natural or
anthropogenic stresses.
Characterizing the benthic
community in South Carolina coastal habitats is,
therefore, essential to the SCECAP program. Using
several measures of benthic community condition, Van
Dolah et al. (1999) recently developed a benthic index
of biological integrity (B-IBI) for southeastern estuaries
to distinguish between degraded and undegraded
environments. Using this B-IBI, the majority of South
Benthic organisms
are considered to
be excellent indica-
tors of environmen-
tal stress.
Sediment samples are
sieved to collect bottom-
dwelling organisms such
as the crustacean shown
on the left.
Carolina's coastal habitat sampled in 1999-2000 had
undegraded benthic communities, 12% of both creek
and open water habitat showed evidence of some
possible degradation, and only 4% of tidal creek habitat
and 2% of open water habitat had benthic communities
that were degraded (Figure 13).
Percent of Habitat
Benthic- IBI
2% 4%
12%
86%
12%
84%
Open
Degraded Marginal
Creeks
Undegraded
Figure 13. Estimates of the percent of the state s
coastal habitat having benthic invertebrate
communities representing undegraded, marginally
degraded, or degraded conditions.
Finfish and Crustacean
Communities
Estuarine waters support a diverse and transitory
fish assemblage, with many species often present only
during certain seasons or stages of development
(Ogburn eta!., 1988). Tidal
creeks provide critical habitats
for many species because
these shallow wetland areas
supply food, provide refuge
from predators, and are
valuable habitats that are
utilized by the egg, larval,
juvenile, and adult stages of a
variety of finfish and crusta-
cean species (Joseph, 1973;
Mann, 1982; Nelson et al, 1991). Because these
organisms are highly motile, they may or may not be
suitable as indicators of biotic condition at a particular
Tidal creeks provide
food, refuge from
predators, and
critical habitats for
the life cycle devel-
opment of many
species.
-------
Otter trawls are used to
collect fish and
crustaceans at each site.
Shrimp and spot are typical species
collected.
The abundance of
fish and other or-
ganisms was signifi-
cantly higher in
tidal creeks than in
open water.
site. However, we consider it important to document
the abundance and diversity of the fish and crustaceans
at the various sites, with an ultimate objective to define
where these communities are
limited and, hopefully,
develop a second index of
biotic integrity using these
species. The data are also
useful for defining where
recreationally and ecologi-
cally valuable species are
most abundant and diverse,
and what specific habitat
characteristics are associated with these conditions.
Better knowledge of the most productive habitats is
critical for protection against human-induced impacts.
The biota sampled by trawls at tidal creek and open
water stations displayed a similar array of species,
including many commercially and recreationally
important species such as white shrimp, brown shrimp,
blue crabs, and spot. Other important species collected
in lower abundances included silver perch, Atlantic
croaker, weakfish, Atlantic spadefish, mullet, summer
flounder, ladyfish, spotted sea trout, pink shrimp,
southern flounder, white catfish, Atlantic sharpnose
shark, sea catfish, Spanish mackerel, black sea bass,
American shad and southern kingfish (whiting). Some
of these species are not commonly harvested
recreationally in South Carolina, but they are
recreationally important in other areas and many are
kept as incidental catch by fishermen in this state.
The abundance, biomass and diversity (number of
species) of the fish, crustaceans, and other organisms
collected in the trawls was significantly higher at tidal
creek stations compared to open water stations (Figure
14). This indicates that different criteria should be
used for each habitat type when defining whether
conditions are poor or normal for these measures.
SCECAP staff have identified the 25th and 10th percen-
tile values representing each of these measures in both
creek and open water habitats based on the sampling
conducted to date (Van Dolah etat, 2002). As more
sites are sampled, these threshold values will be refined
and evaluated for possible incorporation into an index
of biotic integrity.
Contaminant levels in selected fish species were
also evaluated beginning in 2000. All of the tissue
samples had detectable levels of some contaminants,
but only one site (Shipyard Creek, an industrialized
drainage basin in Charleston Harbor) had levels that
were especially high for fluorene and anthracene, two
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. None of the con-
taminants exceeded Food and Drug Administration
(FDA) criteria for safe consumption. In a recent report,
the USEPA suggested that southeastern estuaries
O
-------
Abundance
g 1200
CC
o
o
-------
Integrated Habitat Quality Score
1999 - 2000
100
80-
re 60 -
re
+-»
5
re
x
re
•*->
o
c
S3
u
-------
Central Region
A
O
u >
~ *
10 0 10 Miles
i l I ZJ
Figure 16.
Distribution of open
water and tidal
creek stations
sampled in the
northern, central,
and southern portion
of the State during
1999-2000 that had
an overall habitat
quality score of
"good" or
"marginal" based
on an integrated
measure of water
quality, sediment
quality and
biological condition.
Station Type
Open Water
O Degraded
O Marginal
O Good
Tida! Creek
A Degraded
A Marginal
A Good
N
Southern Region
A
•4 A <£>
~
.A
~
# #
4 • S* ^A ±
A A*
••
A • * 5 0 5 10 Miles
~ A A r—¦- r i i
€>
-------
or poor sediment quality also had evidence of a de-
graded benthic community.
Four of the five marginal stations found in the
northern portion of the state were located in Winyah
Bay, which is highly indus-
trialized and has commercial
port facilities (Figure 16).
All but one of those had poor
sediment quality and mar-
ginal or poor benthic condi-
tion, but good water quality.
The other marginal site was
located in Key Creek off the
lower portion of Five
Fathom Creek in the Cape
Romain area. This site had
marginal water quality,
sediment quality, and a marginal biotic condition, but
there was no clear source of anthropogenic input.
Three of the four sites that coded as marginal in the
central portion of the state were located m tidal creeks
(Figure 16). All diree had poor or marginal water
quality, two had poor sediment quality, and two had
None of the state's
coastal waters had
a combination of
poor water quality,
poor sediment
quality, and poor
biotic condition in
1999 and 2000.
poor biotic condition along with either poor water
quality and/or poor sediment quality. The one open
water site that coded as marginal was located in Ship-
yard Creek, where both industrial and port facilities are
located. This site had acceptable water quality, but
poor sediment quality and a marginal benthic index.
Even though the majority of stations sampled in
1999-2000 were located in the southern portion of the
state, only three tidal creek stations coded as having a
marginal overall habitat quality (Figure 16). One of
these sites was located near upland development in the
Beaufort River. The other two were not very close to
developed upland areas and had no clear source of
anthropogenic input. The lower incidence of marginal
stations in the southern portion of the state may in part
be due to the higher tidal flushing in those areas.
Additionally, many of the sites sampled 111 that portion
of the state were located in relatively pristine locations,
such as the ACE Basin National Estuarine Research
Reserve (NERR). More information on each site, and
the specific coding of the water quality, sediment
quality and B-IB1 scores is available in Van Dolah et al.
(2002).
Some sites near industrial and urban
development were found to have marginal habitat
quality.
-------
CONCLUSIONS
Results obtained from the 1999-2000 SCECAP
survey indicate that most of South Carolina's estuarine
habitats are in good condition. Portions of the state's
estuaries that coded as marginal were primarily located
in developed
watersheds,
although a few
sites had no
obvious sources of
human influence.
Future sampling in
subsequent years
will provide an
indication of
whether habitat
quality throughout
the state is similar
over time, or
getting worse with
increased coastal
development
pressures. Future
sampling will also provide an opportunity to evaluate
conditions within some of the larger drainage basins,
such as Winyah Bay, Charleston Harbor, Port Royal
Sound, or within specific areas of interest such as
Georgetown County, Charleston County, Beaufort
County, etc., once a large enough database is available.
Criteria for defining marginal or poor conditions with
respect to the various water quality, sediment quality,
and biological measures also will be refined once a
larger data set is available.
Finally, the data obtained from the 1999-2000
survey, combined with future data to be collected by
the SCECAP program, provides a valuable database on
the environmental and biological conditions in tidal
creek and open
water habitats
located in both
pristine areas and
sites near indus-
trial and residential
development.
Other studies
targeting special
areas of concern
should find this
database extremely
useful for compari-
son with ""normal"
conditions repre-
senting relatively
pristine habitats
throughout the
state's coastal zone, or in a sub-region of the state. The
data also provide a better understanding of what values
represent normal versus unusual conditions with
respect to the various water quality, sediment quality
and biological measures considered. This is particu-
larly important for tidal creek habitats, which show
clear differences in many of these measures compared
to the same measures taken in the larger open water
bodies that have been traditionally sampled by the
SCDHEC and SCDNR.
o
-------
LITERATURE CITED
Bamber, R.N. 1987. The effects of acidic sea water on young
carpet-shell clams Venerupis decussata (1.) (Mollusca:
Veneracea). Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and
Ecology 108:241-260.
Bamber, R.N. 1990. The effects of acidic seawater on three
species of lamellibranch mollusks. Journal of
Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 143: 181-191.
Bricker, S. B., C. G. Clement, D. E. Pirhalla, S. R Orlando and
D. R. G. Farrow. 1999. National Estuarine Eutrophication
Assessment: Effects of Nutrient Enrichment in the Nation's
Estuaries. National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration National Ocean Service, Special Projects
Office and the National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science.
Silver Spring, Maryland.
Chapman, P.M. 1990. The sediment quality triad approach to
determining pollution-induced degradation. Sci. Total.
Environ. 97: 815-825.
Chapman, P.M., E. A. Power, R.N. Dexter, and G.A. Burton, Jr.
1991. Integrative assessments in aquatic ecocsystems. Pp
313-340 In G.A. Burton, Jr. (ed). Contaminant Sediment
Toxicity Assessment. Lewis Pubulisher, Chelsea, MI.
Gibson G.R., M.L. Bowman, J.Gerritsen, and B.D. Snyder.
2000. Estuarine and Coastal Marine Waters: Bioassessment
and Biocriteria Technical Guidance. EPA 822-B-00-024.
U.S. Enviromnental Protection Agency, Office of Water,
Washington, DC.
Holland, A.F., G.H.M. Riekerk, S.B. Lerberg, L.E. Zimmerman
and D.M. Sanger. 1997. Assessment of the Impact of
Watershed Development on the Nursery Functions of Tidal
Creek Habitats, pp. 110-115 In: Management of Atlantic
Coastal Marine Fish Habitat: Proceedings of a Workshop
for Habitat Managers, ASMFC Habitat Management Series
#2, April 1997. 223p.
Hyland, J.L. R.F. VanDolah andT.R. Snoots. 1999. Predicting
stress in benthic communities of southeastern U.S.
estuaries in relation to chemical contamination of
sediments. Enviromnental Toxicology and Chemistry
18(11): 2557-2564.
Joseph, E.B. 1973. Analysis of a nursery ground. In Pachcco.
A.L. (ed.) Proceedings of a Workshop on Egg, Larval, and
Juvenile Stages of Fish in Atlantic Coast Estuaries.
Lerberg, S.B., A.F. Holland, and D.M. Sanger. 2000.
Responses of tidal creek macrobenthic communities to the
effects of watershed development. Estuaries 23:838-853.
Long, E.R., D.D. MacDonald, S.L. Smith, andF.L. Calder.
1995. Incidence of adverse biological effects within
ranges of chemical concentrations in marine and
estuarine sediments. Environmental Management 19:
81-97.
Mann, K.H. 1982. Ecology of coastal waters. University of
California Press, Los Angeles, California. 322 pp.
Nelson, D.M., E.A. Irlandi, L.R. Settle, M.E. Monaco, L.
Coston-Clements. 1991. Distribution and abundance of
fishes and invertebrates in Southeast estuaries. ELMR
Rep. No. 9. NOAA/NOS Strategic Environmental
Assessments Division, Silver Spring, Maryland. 167 pp.
Ogburn, M.V., D.M. Allen, W.K. Michener. 1988. Fishes,
shrimps, and crabs of North Inlet Estuary, SC: Afour-year
seine and trawl survey. Baruch Institute Technical Report.
No. 88-1.299 pp. University of South Carolina. Columbia,
South Carolina.
Ringwood, A.H. and C.J. Keppler. In review. Is pH really a
"non-issue" in estuaries. Estuaries.
Sanger, D.M., A.F. Holland, and G.I. Scott. 1999a. Tidal Creek
and Salt marsh Sediments in South Carolina Coastal
Estuaries. I. Distribution of Trace Metals. Archives of
Enviromnental Contamination and Toxicology 37:445-
457.
Sanger, D.M., A.F. Holland, and G.I. Scott. 1999b. Tidal Creek
and Salt Marsh Sediments in South Carolina Coastal
Estuaries. II. Distribution of Organic Contaminants.
Archives of Enviromnental Contamination and Toxicology
37:458-471.
Scott, G.I. M.H. Fulton, G.T. Chandler, PB. Key, E.D. Strozier,
B.C. Thomposn, J.W. Daugomah, P. Pennington, SI
Layman. 1994. A survey of sediment toxicity in Charleston
Harbor, Winyah Bay, North Edisto River and North Inlet
estuaries of South Carolina. Final Report to NOAA,
National Status and Trend Program, Bioeffects Divsion,
Seattle, Washington: 80p + appendices.
Scott, G.I., M.H. Fulton, D. Bearden, K.W.Chung, M.Sanders,
A. Dias, L.A. Reed, S. Sivertsen, E. D. Strozier, PB.
Jenkins, J.W. Daugomah, P. Pennington, J. DeVane, PB.
Key, A.K.Leight, and W. Ellenbery. 2000. Chemical
contaminant levels in estuarine sediment of the Ashepooo-
Combahee-Edisto River (ACE) Basin National Estuarine
Reseearch Reserve and Sanctuary Site. 104 p.
South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental
Control. 1998. Summary of Selected Water Quality
Parameter Concentrations in South Carolina Waters and
Sediments January 1,1993 - December 31,1997. Technical
Report 004-98. Bureau of Water, Columbia, S.C.
-------
South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental
Control. 2001a. Water Classifications and Standards
(Regulation 61-68) and Classified Watrs (Regulation 61-
69) for the State of South Carolina. Office of
Enviromnental Quality Control, Columbia, SC.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2001. National
Coastal Condition Report. EPA-620-R-01-005. 204 pp.
Van Dolah, R.F. J.L. Hyland, A.F. Holland, J.S. Rosen, and
T.R. Snoots. 1999. A benthic index of biological integrity
for assessing habitat quality in estuaries of the southeastern
United States. Marine Enviromnental Research 48: 269-
283.
Van Dolah, R.F., D.E. Chestnut, and G.I. Scott. 2000. A
baseline assessment of environmental and biological
conditions in Broad Creek and the Okatee River, Beaufort
County, South Carolina. Final Report to the Beaufort
County Council, Beaufort County, South Carolina. 115 p.
plus appendices.
Van Dolah, R.F., P.C. Jutte, G.H.M. Riekerk, M.V. Levisen,
L.E. Zimmerman, J.D. Jones, A. Lewitus, D.E. Chestnut,
W.McDennott, D. Bearden, G.I. Scott, and M.H. Fulton.
2002. The Condition of South Carolina's Estuarine and
Coastal Habitats During 1999-2000: Technical Report.
Charleston SC: South Carolina Marine Resources Division
Technical Report No. 90. 132 p.
e
-------
D H E G
sis
PROMOTE PROTECT PROSPER
South Carolina Department of Health
and Environmental Control
Total copies: 300
Total cost: $2,565.00
Cost per copy: $8.55
The South Carolina Department of Natural Resources
prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color,
sex, national origin, disability, religion or age. Direct
all inquiries to the Office of Human Resources, P.O.
Box 167, Columbia, S.C. 29202.
Printed on Recycled Paper
October 2002
------- |