III F'IIIIIII CHRLESTON HARBOR i/3 AND SHIPYARD RIVER ... · D-R149 547 CHARLESTON HARBOR DEEPENING...
Transcript of III F'IIIIIII CHRLESTON HARBOR i/3 AND SHIPYARD RIVER ... · D-R149 547 CHARLESTON HARBOR DEEPENING...
D-R149 547 CHARLESTON HARBOR DEEPENING PROJECT CHRLESTON HARBOR i/3
AND SHIPYARD RIVER SOUTH CAROLINA(U) CORPS OF ENGINEERS
UNCLSSIIED CHARLESTON SC CHARLESTON DISTRICT APR 76 / 132 NIC III F'IIIIIII
EIIIIIIIIIIIIuIIIIIIIIIIIIIuIIIIIIIIIIIIIIEIIIIIIIIIIIhuEIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIhhll
1.8.
1111 2 111 .
MICRCOP RESLUTON TST HAR
NAIOA BUEA OF ___W) l,
_ ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT
Approvyd for rubu Rease: JhunUi
CHARLESTON HARBOR DEEPENING PROJECT
CHARLESTON HARBOR AND SHIPYARD RIVER, SOUTHI CAROLIN A
DTIC
ELCTEIIJAN 2 5 1985
.. .-- }-u.i eProduct-.{--, :'!:/ bein black a.nd
CL. S. TRO ENHINER DI TRICT
CHA RLESTON, SOUT H CAROLINA
APRIL. 1976
85 01 15 036
U. S. .aMY e WTC
SUMMARY
CHARLESTON HARBOR DEEPENING PROJECT, CHARLESTON
HARBOR AND SHIPYARD RIVER, SOUTH CAROLINA
( ) Draft (x) Final Environmental Statement
Responsible Office: U. S. Army Engineer District, P.O. Box 919,Charleston, S. C. 29402 (AC 803-577-4171)
1. Name of Action: ( ) Administrative (X) Legislative
2. Description of Action: The recommended plan of improvement
consists of the deepening of the entrance channel to Charleston
Harbor from a depth of 35 feet to a depth of 42 feet and the
extension of this channel from Mile -10.4 seaward to the 42-foot
depth contour (Mile -11.2); deepening the existing harbor channels 0
from a depth of 35 feet to a depth of 40 feet from the Entrance
Channel (Mile 0.6) to Mile 15.7 at Goose Creek; deepening of the
|0Shipyard River channel from 30 feet to 38 feet; enlargement of the -
upstream and downstream turning basins in Shipyard River to provide .
a 1,000 foot diameter turning area and to widen the connector
channel between the two basins to 250 feet; enlargement of the 0
anchorage basin near the harbor mouth by deepening to a depth of
40 feet and by extending the south side by 1,400 feet; enlargement
of the turning basin at the head of the commercial channel at Goose 0
Creek; dredging a new turning basin adjacent to the Columbus Street
docks; widening the North Charleston and Filbin Creek reaches to
500 feet; easing the bend at the intersection of the channel and 0
Wando River; and the relocating of channels near terminals to provide
125-foot clearance between piers and the edge of the channel.* 0
0
-- ! ... .p 0,
3. a. Environmental Impacts: Water quality changes
including temporary and localized increases in turbidity and levels
, of dissolved materials; localized adverse effects on plankton and
primary productivity; minor losses of larval and juvenile fishes
near the dredge and disposal areas; detraction of the visual appear-
ance of the harbor by the presence of the dredge boats and pipelines;
minor air discharges and noise pollution from diesel powered equip-
ment; preemption of present uses of disposal areas. e
b. Adverse Environmental Impacts: Localized adverse
effects on water quality and aquatic animals; detraction of the visual
appearance of the harbor by the presence of the dredge boats and pipe-
lines; minor air discharges and noise pollution from diesel powered
equipment; preemption of present uses of disposal areas.
4. Alternatives:
4 a. Other channel depths
b. Lighterage system
c. Offshore ocean terminal
d. Terminal at Cummings Point
e. Pipeline from source 0
f. No action
g. Combinations of various dredging techniques
5. Comments received from:
Soil Conservation Service, USDA
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare
Federal Power Commission
United States Department of Interior
4 United States Environmental Protection Agency _
United States Department of Commerce
United States Coast Guard
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
4 South Carolina State Ports Authority pSouth Carolina Wildlife and Marine Resources Department
Approximately 50 other organizations and individuals
6. Draft Statement to CEQ 16 September 1974
Revised Draft Statement to CEQ 26 March 1975 O
Final Statement to CEQ 29 March 1976
ii .
* w W W W W V V V V V
F I N A L
ENV IRONMENTAL STATEMENT
C LAR I. SION HARBOR DEEPEN ING PROJEClT
CHARLESTON HARBOR AND) SHIPYARD RIVER, SOUTH CAROLI[NA
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Para. No. Page No.
PROJ ECT DESCR [PT ION 1.0 1
Proj ect imthiorizat ion 1.01 1
Pro0j CCt p ur posec 1.02 1
P roposed p1.m of c imp rovemnen t 1 .03 1
Proposed drtzdged material quant ities and
*plaicement p1lan 1.04 1,
Sp(oCtZ1 inI t 0(1 L' 1.05 5
Relationiship to other projects 1.068
ENV IRONMENI'Ai Sll'TTNC WITHOUT THE PROJECT 2.0 10
Gcnera 1 2.01 10
Trihlutairv %waters 2.02 10
('oope r Rite r 2.02.1 10
*Ashlcv Rivcr 2.02.2 11
Wand N vjr2.02.3 11
Shi p\%arc Rvct 2.02.4 11
ShemcC 2.02.5 11
Ext st ini prOj' 't 2.03 1
Othe.r [((I.i prc~ects, 2.04 13
Ashc'. cr2.04.1 13
Shiv~r2.04.2 13
't-, At:,ti hi~utraicoinstal Waterway 2.04.3 1
Coo)pe~ ;-r ivcrs ion Project 2.04.4 14-
Non-prjtc s-(rite facilities 2.05 16
I I d e - 2.06 17
(>'olI'w v nl 'o its 2.07 17
Lo I ~2.07.1 17
w w
Para. No. Page No.
Soi L.s 2.07.2 20
Mineral resources 2.07.3 20
Nature of Charleston estuarvbottom sediments 2.08 21
General 2.08.1 21
Chemical characteri1st ics of
rMbottom sediments 2.08.2 22
Pesticides in bottom, scdiments, 2.08.3 23
hlydrology, 2.09 2 3
General 2.09.1 23
Ground w.ater 2 -.09.2 24
Water qu-ility 2.10 29
Charleston Harbor 2.10.1 29
Cooper River 2.10.2 29
Wando River 2 .10 .3 39
.sivRiver 2.10.4 42
Ar, q ualit 2.11 42
Cli:m.ate 2.12 4
Biol)1og ical r es rc 2.13 44S
Plants 2.13.1 44
W4ildl ife 2.13.2 49
Birds 2.13.2.1 49
Mammals 2.13.2.2 50
Reptiles; and ,mphihiians 2.13.2.3 51
Rare and endnogcred spec ics 2.13.2.4 51
F ish;l 2.13.3 53
* Coopcr River 2.13.3.1 5
(Thiries ton Harbor .idconti~uou.; water.; 2.13.3.2 54
Ashley- River 2.13.3.3 56
and P Rivt r 2.13.3.4 56
C onme rc i ii I He r i es2.13.4 57
f nve r tebrateL 2.13.5 5
L op l)1a n ktLon 2.13.6 0
Uf f io rip i - rI 2.13.7 6)
iv
I I.Descr i pt ion of diked"i spo, 1 arIeII s 2.1 .8 64
Daniel Island 2.13.8.1 64 o
orris Island 2.13.8.2 64a
I)rwnl I[sand 2.13.8.3 64b 0-"~~~~ t , ,: c o i. 13. S. 4 64b)
YC 104w I;Osc' Creek 2. 1 3.0. 64c
re r ipt i,n 0f proposed disposal areas 2.13.9 64d . -,
X~monio" J~velopment 2. 14 65 z
Port of Charleston 2.14.1 65
iiono .i' :i, :ttlrs 2 14.2 66
2.14.2.1 61 p I, at ion 2.14.2.2 66 S
ncm 2. 14.2. 1 66
ovihp,, a.:,, t 2 14.2.4 7I
I1,iLl-trio l development 2. 14. 5 07
il 1 -. iir 2 . 14. 2. 6 07
rsprttt ion faciities 2.15 67
\rlhcoloi al and historical elements 2. 16 68
rc:i'x. ion 2.17 69
0rt i i, nv ironmenta I sett ing without
Us,, ir,, t 2.18 70
I:!: I l H PRIP SED A(T I'()
fA !) FS' "N'S 3.0 71
'i;A XI N4 ,CI 1F [111:1 PRiIPI)SK'I) AC II()N,' NI.... . 4.. 72
r.! I , , ierat ions 4.01 72' . : , i '. 4 €) ,7 2
-. 4
-4- . •- .
,',r .. at; .', ). i I 71{ _
i , i. r -.
II I71
4.
- . -. - . .
j!
4... 1P4
-7.-. .- ....
Para. No. Page No.
Phytoplankton studies 4.03.5.1 75
Laboratory studies 4.03.5.1.1 75
Field studies 4.03.5.1.2 75
Zooplankton 4.03.5.2 76
Invertebrates 4.03.6 77
Fish 4.03.7 77
Larval fish 4.03.7.7 80 6
Commercial fisheries 4.03.7.8 82
Ocean disposal site 4.03.8 82
Rare and endangered species 4.03.9 83
Archaeological and historical sites 4.04 83 S
Aesthetics 4.05 83
Air quality 4.06 84
Noise 4.07 84
Economic impact 4.08 84
Maintenance dredging 4.09 84
Existing projects 4.10 85
Mosquitoes 4.11 86
ANY PROBABLE ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL
EFFECTS WHICH CANNOT BE AVOIDED 5.0 86a
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION 6.0 87
Alternatives meeting all project
objectives 6.01 87
Deepening alternatives 6.02 88
Alternatives that meet projectobjectives in limited fashion 6.03 89 40
No action 6.04 91
Dredging alternatives 6.05 92
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LOCAL SHORT-
TERM USES OF MAN'S ENVIRONMENT ANDTHE MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT OF
LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY 7.0 97
vi j
Ali
Para. No. Page. No.
ANY IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE
COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES WHICH
WOULD BE INVOLVED IN THE PROPOSED . -
ACTION SHOULD IT BE IMPLEMENTED 8.0 98
COORDINATION WITH OTHERS 9.0 99
LIST OF REFERENCES 121
LIST OF FIGURES
No. Page No.
1 Index Map 125
2 Entrance channel to Shipyard River L26
3 Shipyard River to Goose Creek 127
4 Location of Charleston Harbor disposal areas 128
5 Percent silt or clay in Charleston Harbor sediments 29
6 Peterson dredge samples L30
7 Cooper River and Clouter Creek bottom sediment
sample locations 131 -
8 Lower Ashley River bottom sediment sample locations 132
9 Upper Ashley River bottom sediment sample locations 133
10 Wando River bottom sediment sample locations 134
11 Wando River bottom sediment sample locations 135
12 Stono River bottom sediment sample locations 136
13 IWW and Inlet Creek bottom sediment sample locations 137
14 Location of EPA water quality stations 138
15 Wando River water quality stations 139
16 Sampling stations - Cooper River standing crop studies 140
vii
" . 0 ... 0 -- S. . S 0 ' " -0 - . S. . 0 .. . . 0 0
L *I . " .'-* /
LIST OF TABLES 0
No. Page No.
1 Estimates of annual dredging rates for average fresh-water inflows of 15,600 cfs and 3,000 cfs 141 - -, .
2 Charleston Harbor sediments data collected by theEnvironmental Protection Agency 142
3 Charleston Harbor sediments analysis, Aug. 1972 (S.C.Pollution Control Authority) 143 -
4 Pesticide analysis-bottom sediments (USGS) 146
5 Monthly and yearly mean discharge-Pinopolis Hydro-electric Plant 147
6 Charleston Harbor water quality data collected by 0the S. C. Department of Health & Environmental Control 148
7 Cooper River effluent discharges 149
8 Summary of physical, chemical and microbiological datacollected by the Environmental Protection Agencyduring October and November, 1971 150
9 Ashley River effluent discharges 151
10 Monthly occurrence of fish species-Charleston Harborarea 1970-1972 152
11 Monthly occurrence of fish species-Morris Islandarea 1970-1971 156
12 Commercial fishery landings, Charleston County, S.C. 160
13 Average monthly catch per unit of effort for zoo-plankters in experimental plankton tows, WandoRiver, 1963-1964 L61
14 :onthly abundance of zooplankters in experimentalplankton tows, Cooper River, 1963-1964 162
15 Monthly abundance of zooplankters in experimental0 plankton tows, North Santee River, 1963-1964 L63
16 Monthly abundance of zooplankters in experimental 0plankton tows, Ashley River, 1963-1964 164
17 Standing crops (catch per surface acre) of fishesand invertebrates in three Cooper River, South
0 Carolina, tidal streams in April, July, andNovember, 1971 165
18 Species composition of benthic and free-swimminginvertebratus captured in the Charleston Harbordumping, area 167
19 Species compositicn of fish captured in CharlestonHarbor dumpini, area 168 0
Viii
'° 0 0 0 0 0
APPENDICES
No.
A Economic Data
B letters of Comment on Draft EIS
C Letters of Comment on Revised Draft E[S
S
Awl
D M
ixs
NrIs- CRA&I ..... 5
I
-J"
ix
* U S S 5 0 S 6 0 0 0 0 0
1.0. Project description. ..
1.01. Project authorization. The Charleston Harbor __ S
Navigation Study is authorized by Section 6 of the Rivers and
Harbors Act of 1945 and Seven Congressional Resolutions; the
latest adopted 19 October 1967 by the Committee on Public Works
of the United States House of Representatives. The study is in-
tended to determine if the existing project should be modified
in any wav at this time (deepening, widening, or extending exist-
ing channels).
1.02. Project purpose. The .se Df this project
is to provide safe navigation for exis g and prospective large
vessel traffic by deepening existing char (shown on Figure
1), providing new and enlarged turning basins, and providing
minor alignment changes and easing of bends.
1.03. Proposed plan of improvement. The proposed plan
of improvement for Charleston Harbor, shown on Figures 2 and 3,
consists of the following:
a. Deepening the existing entrance channel from
a depth of 35 feet to a depth of 42 feet. The channel width will
not be changed. This reach extends from Mile 0.6- seaward to the
42-foot contour, a distance of approximately 11.8 miles. S
b. Deepening the existing harbor channels from
a depth of 35 feet to a depth of 40 feet from the Entrance Channel
(Mile 0.6) to Mile 15.7 at Goose Creek. Widths will be variable
because of minor alignment changes and easing of bends.
c. Deepening of the Shipyard River channel from
30 feet to 38 feet. In addition, the alignment of the upstream
and downstream turning basins anu connector channel will be shifted
in a northeasterly direction (see Figure 3), to provide a 125-foot
buffer zone between the channel edge and existing piers on the
S 0
S U U U U U U U U U U -
1
- . -- . -. =---
on the southside of the river. The realigned turning basins will
provide 1,000 feet diameter turning basins and the connector chan-
nel between them will be widened to 250 feet. The width of the
entrance channel will not be changed.
d. Enlargement of the anchorage basin at the
harbor mouth. The basin will be deepened to 40 feet and the
south side will be extended 1,400 feet.
e. Enlargement of the existing turning basin
at the head of the commercial channel (Figure 2).
f. Dredging a new turning basin adjacent to
the Columbus Street docks as shown on Figure 2 (Insert "A").
g. Widening North Charleston and Filbin reaches
to 500 feet.
4 h. Shifting of channels near the various ter-.4
minals as shown on Figures 2 and 3 to provide 125 feet between
existing piers and tht edge of the channel.
1.04. iroposed dredged material quantities and placement
plan. The initial amount of material to be dredged for the various
reaches within the harbor, including the entrance channel, are as
follows:
Federal dredging Cubic Yards
Entrance Channel (mile .6 - seaward) 12,095,000
Enlarged Anchorage Basin 2,383,000
Mount Pleasant Range to Myers Bend (mile .6 to mile8.2) 2,982,000
Custom House Reach 3,233,000
Myers Bend to Head of Commercial Project (mile 8.2to mile L5.7) 3,8 54 ,000
Shipyard River 2,530,000 •
TOTAL. .EI)E\RAI. 27, ()77,000
S U S 5 5 5 0 5 0 0
D~ocks and Bert hing Areas (Non-1 cdcral Dre dging)
Union Stree~~t 40)
COI lmblu7' St rcet 4 ,00O
North Char rs ton Reuach r~*2
* E~~ihin Creek Reach T,0
Port YrinoIRuoch ,0
Shipya1rd River 1 70 ,000
I'MAL NON-FETiIPAl- )1)4,000
ot tar ,taij 2;,077 ,(H) euhi yards of raLteria I to be removed
0 re.. the Fedora I projt~'ot !JCIa , 1 2,095,000 cub ic yards from the
tt ran 11, (-I annt! I areL o;hk'JLuII oh for open wa ter ( ispes al in a
currentlv u-,rd oFfs'yr- area lora1tel approx inxte V 8 miles offshore
C at L-atitude 320 36' 1'Nand Longitude 79' 44' 39!' W in about
40O feot -)I wat,,r. Fhis cfts:horr jump site complies with EPA
recommeatosa:d.:±ss ted On the haIS is Of recommenda tions
provi ded by t he Sou t 2Caro I ma kWi I dlIi fte and Mar ine Resources De-
parme~i e!thll cubn -rin, i r2. ,~0Iob ds of material,
23'4I d 3 u Ict i ad ,a It t~rn i ng baisini scu,)ii, !e placed in
Lh., 11"'.)' - h on 'lorris sV d ad I,2),0
rcaL r~~innei hairhor would he. placed )In up land(
a , ,, jrs riii,,,I tjpl,oi jipslareal would
net. en B'ICI tet ind about 49 acrt-s (20 acres
.rcml a iar ornI 2) cres for Fdi'mIRiver) would be
*~~~~~ S S SS S
needed on an anaiual basis during the 50-year economic life of the
project for disposal of the additional shoal material (approximately
1,737,000 cubic yards annually) expected to be generated as a result
of the harbor deepening. The project sponsor has indicated that it
would be desirable from his position to locate the upland disposal
areas on and northward of Daniel Island. The Daniel Island site and
area northward is of sufficient capacity to accommodate anticipatedquantities of dredged material to be removed from the harbor during.'
its 50-year economic life with and without rediversion of the Cooper
River.
A pipeline dredge would be utilized to accomplish the required
dredging in the inner harbor and a hopper dredge would be utilized
for the entrance and outer bar channels. The entrance and outer bar
channel will be dredged concurrently with the inner harbor deepening
with approximately 21 months being required for dredging the inner
harbor and 30 months for the entrance and outer bar channel.
Estimates of costs for harbor deepening are based on (a) use of
Morris Island and the offshore disposal area for the anchorage and
entrance channel, respectively; and (b) inland disposal areas above
existing marshes for the upper iarbor reaches. The inland 'isposal
areas would be located only on and northward of Daniel Island proper .. ,- -
as local interests have indicated they believe the magnitude of cost
and acquisition problems associated with lands located adjacent to the
south bank of the Wando River would be excessive. The decision to util-
ize inland diked disposal areas for cost estimates resulted from the
following considerations affecting implementation of ocean disposal:
(1) Conditional requirement of successful operation of a small
scale pilot program;
(2) Objections of EPA to disposing of shoal material located
upstream of a line from Sullivans Island to Cummings Point at sea
because of its chemical constituents; and
(3) The current congressional moratorium on plans for replace-
ment or modification of government-owned dredges.
Benefit and cost data are presented in Appendix A of this EIS.
4
W 0 .a W
The benefit-cost ratio is 1.92 for Charleston Harbor and 1.44 for
Shipyard River.
1.05. Special studies. Under the aforementioned authori-
zations, the following studies were conducted:
a. Long-range disposal of dredged material:
During the conduct ot this study of long-range disposal of dredged
material, eight plans were evaluated to determine feasibility and costs
of meeting the dredging requirements of the existing project as well
as related projects for a 60-vear period, 1965 to 2024. As discussed
in the preceeding section, the recommended disposal plan for this
deepening project does not strictly follow any of these eight plans.
Cost estimates were prepared for maintaining the navigation features
located upstream of and including the anchorage basin for the current
maintenance method and nine alternate plans. An estimate of cost for
maintenance dredging utilizing the current practice (pipeline dredge
and harbor-side disposal areas) was prepared for a 100-year period of
analysis and adopted as the base to which the relative merits of the
various alternate methods were compared monetarily. The considered
dredging and disposal plans are summarized as follows:
Plan I - Removal of shoal material by pipeline dredge to a permanent
land disposal area adjacent to the harbor - that is, continuing the
present dredging and disposal method.
Plan 2 - Removal of shoal material and conveying it to a disposal
area at sea, all by hopper dredge.
Plan 3 & 3A - Removal of shoal material by pipeline dredge, placing
it in one intermediate disposal area, then conveying it to sea by pipeline,
by diesel powered booster stations (Plan 3) or electrically poweredI
booster pumps (Plan 3A).
Plan 4 & 4A - Rmovali of shoal material by pipeline dredge, placing
it in two intermediate disposal areas, then conveying it from the inter-
mediate disposal areas to sea by pipeline, by diesel powered booster
pumps (Plan 4) or electrically powered booster pumps (Plan 4A).
Plan 5 - Removal of shoal. material by pipeline dredge, placing it
in an intermediaIte di spsal area, then conveying it by barge to sea.
Plan 6 - Removal of material by pipeline dredge placing it in inter-
* • me~d ,ate di~pal arca-;, tili conveying it from these areas to remote inland
dli Sptls~Ii i :re : by pipel iic.
;_,
* 6 S S S 0 6 S * 0 0 0 S_
4 *0
Plan 7 -Removal of material by pipeline dredge, placing it
in an intermediate disposal area, then conveying it from this
area to remote inland disposal areas by truck.
Plan 8 - Removal of shoal I materi l] I-,- 1 scci'l dredg-e klU--
signed to utilize barges, and the use of these barges to convey "
the material directly to sea. .
b. Estuarine values study:
In order to evaluate (1) the plcns ,'onsidered in the long-range "
dredging and disposal study bvet'. a strictly monetary comparison •
of plans, and (2) the env~ronmental effects of recommended improve-
ments and/or modifications to the existing navigation project, the
Corps requested the Bureau of Sports Fisheries and Wildlife to
4 accomplish the estuarin nu vaIue-; tudv evaluating the effects of 4
the foregoing on fish and wildliffe cesources. To aid the Bureau
of Sports Fisheries and i,.ildlit in their Cvaluations, the follow-
ing special studies :cre contracted for and funded by the Corps of
Engineers: •
(1) evaluation and internrttation of botto- QpiJiment samples, (2) phy-
sical and chemical identj' i:at oton of bottom sediments, (3) bioassav
studies, and (4) inventor, and evaluation of marshlands and poten-
tial offshore disposal areas. S
Based on these S L .1 Lo otr i t , -r i ei t i 1 eag-
range disrosal study, t I; e V'.urrem of '<,ort Fisheries and W'iIdlife
* made the folio, i-:: r r,. - ' : ::;'in', r, : and ,1isitsal
practices:
1. Dismpsal V K ' ,.., the co1 lit',s o! the
harbor or its ad (a a Wiiuid
*2. The 710at ,,s i -. si , redced .- aterial
from an ecolorical > . i, crw.,, and Farce
(Plan q). Further, 1---I, i 1 1A ta the ftavorable
* findings of ai s:n l Ia. ., tin, >, drrdidi
material ran , "a , ,'r a -" .1- -pt iL at ,k 1 nd
* S S S S _ S 0.. - 0
3. The most desirable alternative to sea disposal environment-
ally would be disposal in diked areas located inland above the marshes. I .
The best plan accomplishing both the economical and environmental con-
siderations would be Plan 6 of the long-range disposal study.
c. Charleston Harbor and Shipyard River Modifi- 5cations. Improved project depths of 38, 40, 42, and 45 feet were
considered for existing waterways. Each improved waterway depth
or plan considered for Charleston Harbor included construction of a
new turning basin adjacent to the Columbus Street Docks, enlargement
of the existing turning basin at the head of the commercial channel
(Goose Creek), enlargement of the anchorage and other easing of bends
and minor alignment changes.
The waterway and items of improvement are shown in detail on "ifures 0
2 and 3. In addition, 125 feet will be maintained by non-Federal
interests between existing piers and the edge of the channel for
berthing areas. 1lere necessary existing channels will be deauthor-
ized to provide the required clearance as shown in green on "igures
2 and 3. The most economical plan of improvement for the existing
waterways are channel depths of 40 feet for Charleston Harbor and
38 feet for Shipyard Uiver.
d. Channel extensions. Consideration was given
to extending the commercial navigation channel upstream on the Cooper
and Wando !ivers to serve commercial interests. Three extension "
plans were considered on the Cooper River and consisted of extending S
nav!,4ation upstream to:
(a) AP,ro: imatelv 7ii e 25 (vicinity of South Carolina Electric
S(;as Company's steam powered electric power generating facility). 0
(h) Approximately mile 23, and
(v) o Bic Island adjacent to Verona (Bay Chemical Corporation),
the lc'.a-t cost lv effort to provide deep draft navigation to Bushy
la tr k. "
7
S S S S S S S S S S- S
The c wu:aal vsi- )I thec-'<i p1 ~mns '.vere At I unftivoroble.
Cons iderition wats ,iven to extendling navigat ion upst ream on
tile i'ando Nixiven Lo 4~oia 1 'It Cdi inhoV. I t was conclu tded 0
f ron theL St 11it h e hIt Ox ttnso in of nLi ctio p thle Wa ndo
River to Hi ,hwtv Il is not i eaih le it this t imi*.
The proit.-rted cotatlrcommerce exceeds the exist ing far iii-
t ies at r limbo)S St CL'et ind North Char 1 es ton. Iblis excess0
projcte tonageis cxpec ted to be han led at thle proposed
State Ports Anithor ity Wando Terminal at this time. Currently,
studie-s cent r~icted for by SPA to evaluate thle environmental
C r t (t an A x IIi o-s i b I c iaI erin,!t i yes to thle Wando TterminalI have b ee n
rom c ed l i a yi i o t ofor thie r.,?q i red Cons t ru t ion Pernmit
C. ~ ~ i S.o- n o mi ie s is bei1ng conis i dc red b y tile
Cnarie-toin i~jtrict 'W fi co. lre fore, i t hlas beenl rccommended
LI).iL ai i, Ion :0cr1i-Li ltll ,xton,,ionl bt deferred
AlitLI I i~ r. rDO tDi, i! oD rainedi and cons truct ion or other
06 .D. R1c it jIltthij' to otier projects. The relation-
sh ip of till h it r lis ton lii'i r hr Proje'ct to other Federal, St ate
or Ilkej*i oi<verr Itt ro rcts %oar i us from a lack of anv
S i Tl IF i I-m11t r, I ait e i os t I)soiie formii of enhancement. There
is tO 'I tI - li ii L.Lin o ie proposed proj ect and
I w; ft t0 h.e Im n I- heaer is cons iderabI v
i ib i -- I:,) n -or. lie saitie app I jes to
"J I ~ 11;l> t i var CV' DO1( Cha.rleston
I Lm lo - iinj toi hii- i !k' or-
V I t<4 4tlii tii W IC(Ii V11 i Onl prOjcct:
- ~ ~ ~ ~ b muo*Liit ao r' it higher.
1~~~ ~ tt IS t' -11 0. Vi C s it
K.. 0. a I -ii~i t 1, thartber has
<I> H.i,'er ,,gnrikes except
r° 4, . -
for that aspect associated with the disposal of dredged material.
In this regard, there is no consideration given to the use of
such areas for disposal of dredged material. Examples of such
projects are Forts Sumter and Moultrie of the National Park Service
and Hog Island which is the site of a proposed naval museum.
Q S
II 0
o S
* 9 e ]
(4|
-7.
2.0. Environmental Setting Without the Project.
2.01. General. Charleston Harbor is located at about 0
the midpoint of South Carolina's Atlantic Coast, 140 statute
miles southwest of the entrance to Cape Fear River, North Carolina,
and 75 miles north of Savannah Harbor, Georgia. The lower harbor
is formed by the confluence of Ashley, Cooper and Wando Rivers. B
Vast tidal marsh areas lie on either side of the entrance to
Charleston Harbor. Those marshes to the northeast separate the
barrier islands from the mainland and are intersected bv the Intra-
coastal Waterway and numerous tidal streams. Those to the southwest back S
Morris Island, a rapidly eroding barrier island, and are found on
the southeastern side of James Island. Docking and maintenance
facilities of the harbor are concentrated along the west shore
(right descending side) of Cooper River extending from Battery 0
Point of peninsular Charleston to the mouth of Goose Creek at mile
15.7, the upstream limit of authorized Federal projects. The
locality is shown on U. S. Coast and Geodetic Survey Charts 470
and 1239, and on Figure 1 of this report. .
2.01.1 The harbor covers an area of approximately 14
square miles with depths ranging between 10 and 25 feet at mean
low tide except within project channels which are dredged to a
depth of 35 feet. The harbor is faced with a serious shoaling
problem that is principally due to the Santee-Cooper Project which
was constructed by the S. C. Public Service Authority in 1942.
Prior to this time, the lower harbor required little maintenance dredg-
ing and natural depths in some areas ranged up to about 75 feet.
2.02. Tributary Waters.
2.02.1 Cooper River. The Cooper River Basin comprises
720 square miles of coastal plain in South Carolina. The Cooper
River has its origin at the confluence of its East and West
Branches (locally termed "The Tee") from which it flows 32 miles
southward to its outlet in Charleston Harbor. The East and West
Branches of the Cooper River extend some 20 miles inland in a north- 0
ward direction to their origins as small ill-defined channels in a
10* S S S 0 S 0 0 S 5 5 S.
• • • • -• • • * * -
low-lying area of Berkeley County known as Ferguson Swamp. Lake
Moultrie in the upper part of the Cooper River Basin was constructed
by the S. C. Public Service Authority in 1942 as part of the
Santee-Cooper Project. This lake intercepts drainage of about 300
square miles of the Cooper River Basin. Except for short interven-
ing reaches, the west bank of the Cooper River is lined with Federal,
State, and private docking facilities.
2.02.2 Ashley River. The Ashley River is a small coastal
stream having a watershed of about 350 square miles and an outlet in
the west part of Charleston Harbor. The upper portion of the Ashley S
River is flanked by woodlands interspersed with scattered residences
and farmland. Most of the lower Ashley River Basin down to the
marsh is occupied by residential or commercial development.
2.02.3 Wando River. The Wando River is a small coastal
stream having a watershed of about 120 square miles and an outlet in
the east part of Charleston Harbor. The lower Wando River is bor-
dered by a rather large expanse of salt marsh which in turn is bor-
dered by scattered residences and subdivisions. The extent of
marshes diminishes with distance upstream and the extent of woodland
increases until the uppermost part of the Wando is entirely in wood-
lands.
2.02.4 Shipyard River. Shipyard River, a small tidal
tributary about two miles in length, flows in a southeastward direc-
tion along the southwest boundary of the U. S. Naval Reservation to
Cooper River at a point opposite the southern tip of Daniel Island
at mile 8.7. I)ocking facilities are located along the west shore
of the lower Mile of channel, while the east shore is bounded b.
tidal marshland alonD its entire length.
* 2.02.5 Shem Creek. Shem Creek is a small tidal tributary S
which flows in i southwestward direction to Charleston Harbor at
mile 4. The citv of "ount Pleasant is located to the southeast and
new residential areas are being developed along the northwestern
11
* S S S S S S S S S S1
,. ..,.
shore. The lower reach, that reach downstream of U. S. Highway
17, is used as a base for essentially all commercial fishing --
vessels operating out of Charleston Hiarbor.
2.03. Existing Projutc t Pic existing Charleston
Harbor project, authorized by the Kivers and Harbors Act of
June 18, 1878, and by subsequent acts, of which the latest e
were dated October 17, 1940, March 2, 1945, September 3, 1954,
and July 14, 1960, provides for the following work:
A channel for commercial purposes 35 feet
deep and 1,000 feet wide from the sea to the inner end of the
jetties, thence 600 feet wide to the U. S. Naval Shipyard, and A
thence 400 feet wide to the mouth of Goose Creek, a total dis-
tance of 21.9 miles, with a turning basin 1,100 feet wide at the
Port Terminals; and for a channel 35 feet deep and 500-700 feet wide
through Tuwn Creek; for a channel in Shem (reek 10 feet deep and
110 feet wide from a flared entrance from Hog Island Channel to
and including a turning basin 130 feet wide and 400 feet long
with the upper end 250 feet upstream from the Mount Pleasant
public wharf, thence 10 feet deep and 90 feet wide to the bridge
on U. S. Highway No. 17; and for maintenance of a channel 10 feet
deep and 90 feet wide in flog Island Channel from Shem Creek to
the Atlantic Tntracoastail Uaterwav. The ,-oject also includes
the maintenance of 2 entr'ine jetties of stone on log mattress
foundation; the northi ietv - 1 5,'43 feet long, and the south
jettv, 19,014 fect lec; t 'ane C bct 4een their axis at the
outer end is 2,900 teo. a, e ec t aisl pro%, ides for the
following work, which , ,tthorized to be prosecuted only as
found necessary in the a: er&-t of national defense: ) 40-
foot channel, 1,(0 fect wide frun the sea to the inner end of
the jetties, thence tO0 feet wide to the south pier at the Navy
Yard, and then 1,()00 f et ',,idt' to the Comiandant's wharf; and
an anchorage area 30 fret !e,..p hetwen (.-istle Pincknev and Fort
oultrie.
II
I 0
The project hasl been comITplcd >except for thc 40-foot, national
defense project. .
2.03.1 All Jei'ths rLf,,r to thoL :]ance of nean low water.
The mean rane-e of tide is -. 2 fect, and the extreme range of spring
tides is about 7_5 feet. As of ILIle 1971, the controlling depth
at mean lw water was 35 fcet in th I Entrance Channel and Cooper
River; and 10.0 feet in Shem Creek.
2.04. Other Federal Projects.
2.04.1. Ashley River. The existing project, authorized
by the Rivers and Harbors Act of July 25, 1912 and August 26, 1937,
provides for:
A channel 30 feet deep at mean low water and
4 300 feet wide from the mouth to the Standard Warf, a distance of
7.4 miles; suitably widened at bends and at head of the improve-
ment; and for maintenance, to a depth of 12 feet and a width of 100
feet from the approach channel to the municipal yacht basin. TheI
project was completed in 1940.
The cor:rolling depth at mean low twater in July 1970 was 15 feet
for a width of 300 feet from the mouth to the downstream highway
bridge; thence 14 feet to the head of the project. This project
is not; inactive.
2.04.2. Sqhipyard livur. The existing project, authorized
by the Rivers and Harbors Act of July 3, 1930, and by subsequent
acts, of ..hich the latest is dated March 2, 1945, provides for the
following work:
' ,hannel 30 fect deep at mean low water and
290 feet ..i ,, v idenel to 300 feet 'it t!ie ,ntrance from deep water
in oorer River tc the vicinitv of the plant of Airco Alloys and
Carbide Corpoanv, with -i t irninp basin 30 fzout (leep opposite the
(>jIf (Oil Corporation terminal, and another turning basin 30 feet deep
at the upper (nd ol th,, prc' ct oith a f l-rd entrance; total
lenoth of the pro .acL i-; 1.2 m ies. k Ti. i,rije't m.'as completed in
Jane 1951.
a " S
The controlling depth at mean low water in Octob2r 1970 was 37.0
feet. TII .- S
2.04.3. The Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway (AIU).
Charleston Harbor forms part of the route of the Atlantic Intra-
coastal Waterway. One section of the waterway extends southwest-
ward from Winyah, S. C., to Charleston Harbor through the
Sullivans Island Narrows, and another section extends from the
harbor by way of Wappoo Creek, a tributary of the Ashley River,
southwestward to Beaufort and Port Royal, S. C. The existing
project provides for a channel 12 feet deep at mean low water and I S
not less than 90 feet wide.
2.04.4. Cooper River Rediversion Project. This project
was authorized by the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1968 (Public Law
90-483, 90th Congress, S. 3710, 13 August 1968) and provides for
the construction of a rediversion canal from the northeast portion
of Lake Moultrie to the Santee River near Lake Mattassee and con-
struction of a powerhouse, fish lift, and fish hatchery. The re-
diversion canal will be about 11.5 miles in length and will consist
of a 2.5 mile entrance channel in Lake Moultrie,.an intake canal
about 4.0 miles long and a tailrace canal about 5.0 miles long.
Rediversion will decrease the average discharges through the
Pinopolis Dam to about 3,000 cfs and will increase average flows
in the Santee River. The purpose of the project is to "redivert"
the major portion of the waters from the Santee basin from the
Cooper River to the Santee River therebv effectin2 the reduction
of harbor shoaling and related costly dredging operations in 1
Charleston Harbor. A discussion of the Charleston Harbor shoaling
problem is presented in the following paragraphs.
2.04.4.1. Beginning in 1942, a phenomenal incre.ise occurred
in the rate of shoaling in Charleston Harbor. Deposits of black
muck material began to settle in the harbor and lirve shoalls began
to form in the project channels. Comprehensive studies conducted
by the Corps of Engineers revealed that most of this shoaling was
14
S U U U S U S S S S S 5 0
directly, related to on-eration of the Santee-Cooner develonment
wh ich increasedl the average discharg-e in Ccoon)er Piver from- 72
cfs at Pinopolis to about 15,600 cfs. :lost of- the material
creatinc- these shoals ,,as found to be of :-ledmont oriain and
onlyv a small am-ount was f7ound to he attributed to hlank- erosion.
The increased .freshiwater flow has resulted in the :ormation v
3 density currents in the harbor having a nredominant un streamn
bottom flow.. w,.hich. trars sediment within the h~arbor.
2.04.4-1. The increased shoali-ng, rate hias created tw,.o
ma~or pronlems: (1) nn enormous increase in the cost of main-
taininc 7ro.ect denths b', drdging; and (2)) an increase in tae
rate --7 denletion o0: available rdisrosal sites w.ithin the harbor
area.
2.04.4.3 rior to this increased shoalinc rate, mater-
ials rem-ove, for maintenance credginz ,.,ere 7iaced In Iee- w ater
areas of taci uarnor convenient to the site of dredging. T!,15
Dractice was continued for a time after shoaling became sev,,ere
Until it became evident that much of the sediment remained in0
suspension for a time and then drifted back into thie channels. As
a result, a policy of diking land areas, mostly marshlands, for con-
tainment of dredged materials was established to reduce reshoaling and
coIst S. The heavy shoal ing rates which have prevailed over the past
several years 'have resulted in a severe depletion of areas in
which to deposi t dredged materials. Cancellation of certain dis-
nosal irea easemrents and the short-term nature of othier easements,
together wiuthe continued heavy: shoal ing- rate, combine to inten-
sc'tao, 5-riouisness : o tne dIis-osal area situation. Figure 4 shows
the lo-cation -of all dis;nosal areas which, h~ave been used to date.
.4.4 Most d isposal1 areas are used over a period of %-ears,
* in -stimaite ot thet .innuail need for disposail areas is meaningful only
ii ns ide red ocra nivnher oif years. Based on es ti mates of annu.a I
drJ.Jgif r tr rocerige' :eshWaIter ini lows; ,f 17),(00 and 3,00OO cfs
(T ;:le 1) nh'm rhoIr den"' the llltlxv< delmanIk !,)I disyposll
Ire 3i 's l [)e .I')out 41 7l ii:- a uall I I i tiinuLt-c r ivt i ;er :oo an d
Iaho Ic '] :r I n :l .UiI I jL I- ri- c 'rO S i On. I et I,,~r 'ro1 r, o
a se C o0n t L Io s-opIrt1 Lioi tha Ih I: Inat t to ho L) m) ac L [I I-
riteI c 1 t it- oi I i a c . LAi:- ~ I L n - . 1x I t51!
U~tIILi *ix'j~' i:'~~r ii ccuitea 1:7 icrourle I (
iTh!,e 1 Tuav not 1,e -l(,ijOVOd u-ntil a1b01Lt 10 '-ours-. 1 1-r tLt )ro-
ooct H 'rlrato. (2 ! tS ti lao is a i 11 I'd.'c~s' t I Jt'CI
entire2 :irhor 'oni n-; -li ' iL- u 1Is row'o crom
Ithe jur r iiiujn'it-; ~t i- iintoriiicc red Tinv s~ i t d e I-o.s;i t
ou.tslL tile C MIannv -11 1 fid to moeve 1,ai eallv into tlie clhanniel.
au 1'-a''nten-iat 1 '1 t-:ill inlueaCi si bti'. if the
2.0!. "7- isocilito d L L 'i e coT~ re arC '0
o''' ial foonn -iiV t' of 1ii dels, aind --iers-.
bot 'a i. u r~t 1ouodalan, CLiarleto '-,Li rior. Tho ee
£ ~instai latfoi h~ avea r.~iit 14,9765 1 irelL 'eut of berthinr I
snaCO Ciild 6~32 ,000 f'e're ct co! t ransit shod a1reaL. Ii re arc'
also 50 acres of o ern s' oraj~o aIreas -clus 305 s;tecl storai'e tanks
liavjilo a total capac it" ot I:),)rO :iriatlvw (9,600,00 hiU arrels. The
harbor is broken d a-: i rto sx ia-or tan t , ''or' a I i eas . Tii ese
are the Un ion" ~i er Tcii" ii ol iCe Iurbus rtoo~eT, ia r: s ,as i,Ii -ard
lve r T r i nal or ! 1(A II Ir s o ' rtr mu '' il 1- jljt -- c i C.
'%'a nd 0 ~ it r~ 71F iL
nimhaer or'' ' i'o '~ 'LY
1 i eba ' 'av''-,' e P ;wr th xI I I t Yard
land '11lnc i -r.0- I oaston 'Arm", -o a- 2 :eapons
i-'2 P . r a'h 9 eO "'0dI
'r1rl- 1ir ICi" I- ..i... 'c 1 ea r
4p0 0
F 7-
F e.The mea,,n rangc of t ide in the hiarbor is
c' ~ .I L~ fc et vit[h s 1 )r in and neap) tidle ranges of about
ii,. . c ee, respect ivel \,. M.laximiim current veloci ties
)t iir :,i I enld i l tie tfliut 4.0 to 5.0 feet per
cc~~i -- t ottnd F 1omed ur ons t tedotoverth
1 i LrAlen:PVPti of t top currndotom srata thehalo
4 ti tue Sa ti bc aiis i' 'lo eh Curet dto etenve soals.th
'OL t': iLe Ion': r odi~ o his. The Fo in discsion ofs
* h ' leIChi ci cton Pa rho c pasrepa red by~ thle Dep,-artment
ci t oIrn F 1'og i neers as art0 oF the Charl es ton hiarbor ,
, ' ie Vl Ilies S"tudy (Refe(renc1(e I)
* I . L;co 10o' Chiarleoston aind its surrounding, suburbs
4 r~ ,c-ur~tedMo S;111 ,anon (Late 01 cistocene) landfcrns denosited S
i J'rii iii > ccvi ronnents between 147,000 to 86,000 years before
'L-sct(it',Fterence 2) . During this interval of time the sea
us ~ ac ~cc: imatcivL42 Feet above i--ean sea 1.evel and then
recrt.iJ ith Ii uses at 33 feet, 26 feet, 1.7 feet, and possibly 0
t UL , fl1oivu itL- present surface. Duri ng the init ial Late
. cc cransV ross ion, a thin harrier island chain was dleveloped
I I im, reoi lane t(2ftfl. thbrough i luger toward La dson , South
I ,rI ~ch~.ij ofthis harrier is,-land, miarsb and deltaic sedi- 0
*t nlL ci' tice VotIler tixir were laved dlown. Seaward of tliis barri er
ii i intihe !a I co'-ene sed iments (miost tv tlie Cooper Mairl in thIiis
-in coded and 1)ce ki iicc in Ie.vat ion between 0
clove non senle~i'.iter cofltinental 0
Iii U IMt1n h Iue-Wrt-1 c , i i iU,, s-i I tv manrs o f
Iu ' ine Ii 'cuci ccaiioi I I 1' 'cuir ui t o 10 Feet i n
4t• 7"
2.07.1.1 Pith the drop in sea level from 42 feet to
approximately 33 feet, a second barrier island chain was de- Al
posited. The shoreline of this barrier island extends along
the Charleston-Berkeley County line from the Santee River south
through Cainhov (Wando) through Charleston at approximately 6
mile hill. The wave scoured plain developed on the Cooper Marl p
under this feature lies at an elevation of from sea level to 2
to 3 feet below mean sea level. Landward of this geomorphic
feature, marsh clays in the Charleston area and deltaic sediments
in the Hell Hole Bay area were deposited above the sandy marl to p
elevations as high as 33 feet above mean sea level. Subsequent
Pleistocene erosion has altered this original geomorphic surface
in the vicinity of the Cooper and Santee iUvers, but the surface
is well preserved over larg:e areas of Berkeley County. Seaward pof the latter barrier island chain the land surface crops abruptly
Lo elevations of 17 and/or 3 feet ahove mean -ea level, reflecting
former Late Pleistocene marsh surfaces, until another harrier
i.land chain appears along the route of t!ighca' 17 hetween Awendaw pand the Cooper River. Wave scour on the CoopeLr .arl in this area,
while the shore rested against the former barrK-r island along
the Charleston-IBerkelev Count, line, depressed the elevation of
the Coooer Marl significantly further. Over 100 holes drilled
in Charleston County from the Santee River to the south end of
Folly Island have not encountered the Cooner "arl at elevations Ihigher than 20 feet below mean sea level anywhere and it is frequ-
entlv at much greater depths. The Cooper 'Iarl is overlain by blue- p
grev Late Pleistocene marls in nearly all of these holes. The
rarl is succeeded bv dark grey clays ofi Delctocene ace underlying
the former marsh surfaces or 1y Fine-crained 1,oorl, -ra(dd sands
underlving the former barrier il]ands. p
2.07.1.2 Observation of the elevation of the top of the
"alenene Cooper Marl format ion in the Chtarleston estuar,, area
a'- r e,,rted h,' hond, Chapell & :olruhjoun, 1969 ( ,-erenee 3)
S- o
S S 3 U - W W - -
-v r oiaus 1v dri ll o e1s a pproxima telv 200 to
I' :rds I:i rt2 cn- W- the, cooi-er ;Uver Ic idpes (Highwav 17) did
yOK l lc (oor Mairl- atL depths o' less than 30 feet below
IlnK,:,etrat an is caiused hr) scouring of
u r a: r ae a or inc, tlie Pl eis tocene. The scouring is
c 7t ' 1)", rijver im s,,ment dir ug low stands of sea level dur-
i~i 1 s K -occne!, or !'N ostuar ine scour uuring subsequent rises .
IT IL',1 t;,.,, ,roaid chann,2l indicated h- :rrevious drilling ex-
I a lIn t 1 he course of the Charleston E7stuarv and then jjsour hami cr "orr is Island and the !iort hernmos t expanse of James
Is]an a'' th- LOnt i nontal se f This entrenchment has been
ill12, %cC to noMr 11rx'Ol. .s;imd and marsh a,-nd estuarine muds denosited
ira L '; 1 ' OCCn1 anid 11o loceue Enochis
2.17.1.3 l.a ndwartl of this. area the C:oo,,er M arl generallv
c u :,ci :i~arer thes surfaice of the channel hot ton and f:resluently.....a loor oi t~iu chanmnel either tihrougih natural scouring - or
to rou-i .~ il- i :-ic i, aI d1Ccc'' ing. Never. however, either within the chan-
ic 1t;e ;s or on the land id-iacent to tile channel does, the Cooper
Marl c:: tO(l -morc thazn I or 2 feet above mean sea level for reasons
Oa~ca~ prvlaolw. n so-me localities tile Cooner Marl is either
*itinirc at o:cosvelv lou. depths (as, much as 90 feet below sea
I crc] o r n ot pn,,t ra t ed. These areas l ie within regions where
h)". lot: stands of sea level have caused nrevious river incisemlent
ban]fill mat ori Ilis found where tile Coo. er Marl would
* ~' atcC. it!es scoured channels hanve been inf illed with deposits
S ,! nn el d10 1(ebris 1.11ich ria. o)verlie either Pleistocene
l t- c Lli C-oo:,T Ja;r]
in'lvardl of the hipur17 bridge over the Cooper
o thle (sev;er 'Marl canm occur within a few, feet
-~ :c~ m:he LeXjc'u'LL to ku encountered in dredging 0
is.;t yadohe 1lilw' 17 i~id s. ,i thi n t le (:ooner estu-
I- Ic,,r occur si t hx't ions higher than 40 feet
below mean sea level. Seaward of the Highway 17 bridge over the
Cooper estuary, Pleistocene blue-grey marls may commonly be ex-
pected to be encountered at elevations near sea level while poorly
graded fine- ,raincd s nds un to 30 feet thick will occur in sand
hills regions, and relativelyv loose Pleistocene Glays up to 20
feet thick w.ill occur in flatland regions. Whereas the Cooper
'larl may be encountered at lower elevations than expected due to
channel incisement, it in no case occurs at higher elevations than . -. .
those -reviouslv summarized.
2.07.2. Soils. Soils show considerable variation within 0
the project are-a. The narrow beach fronting on the Atlantic Ocean
consist- ;ainlv oi- snd and shell fragments with a smaller amount
of silt. ' ,)st of the o cean beaches in the project area are eroding
dle to the action of waves and longshore currents. Inland from the P 6
barrier beach zone to the normal upstream limit of saltwater intru-
sion (3 feet rsl) is a tidal marsh with soils comprised of dark
loams, clays and iucks or n;eat and a medium to high organic content.
If drained, these tidal marsh soils may develon into an extremely 0
acidic :ilastic clay known as "cat clay". Soils in this condition
x.,ill not su-:?ort plant life and are difficult to reclaim. Extending
inland from the marsh for about 10 miles are a group of poorly
drained soils occunwing areas that are generally below 15 feet msl. • •
These soils generally have dark grayish surface layers and dark
sandw, clay loam to sandy clay subsoils. Further inland on higher
elevations in gentlv rolling areas are dark sandy loams with clay
subsoils that are moderately well drained. On more level areas S 0
such soils may be poorly drained.
2.07.3. 'Tincral Resources. There is no significant com-
mercial -'roduiction of mineral resources in the project area. The S SCharleston area. however, .as formerly the most productive area of
pllosh:,lte in tihe staIto-. The phosphatic material, a common marine
phosphate known as (iarl)onate-fluorar'atfitc, is phosphatized Cooper
mar] r Fworked into Ithe I ,,er part of the Ladson formation. Phosphate
2 C
- -' ° - --"---
i it 1
.. ' ' . l, t r, ;, _ 'I' l > i l [ l t :i o ll t~_ L o J ( LiaC 1'1i<4 -
L I- L I L L
1,1i r 1 n' o es tua rv hot. ton sediment s
* 01: i 1 L) it x e, k Iit> I t' i ' c Si : V't' tt'ri
," 'o I to t o ' I s L t' I k I tt i i:V i s' t1
I itIIi- lI L ('. i l I, :ltli r' I l'il .- ' - l uC I " -""
- .' : ',] t~ o. '>t'l i O 'K ! t i sin':. I' " ,si~'ll n '. ,[i. " ore( ttt
n'i l tW II' ol lt n,-s~ * I'In c I ' [I ) toku
I i 1 I l r 0t ,V (-i i ' I] I 11 r s n
3 t
c rlt k , !tl l t i Lb tn, ,l t- i t ,m< -;L I i n< v,
* . I t. n Ill I],- tn L.-~' sL t L ap km ci
'I I I- r :,oL' I c' r t .-,'"t r i ci .- c < k11 , i rd ] 11 fL o I o1t i il
W" i t-l'i ~ ' ' I. ' r t, ! , 11 [ L ]'c ' '4 t I" ll,'I r --
I I
t a n d I I, ,I, -t I ; L 2 . t ' I " I I i I-t- - ' 3 '
" t r I I I ill - d
I l-i r I, t o 1 i t I ' - I S t , n
lit,~ ~~~ rI;i b ir t1
i o Il! r: I, u l .ttt tr,. t tr ld . <i n .L s ] i L i t ' i ioll~ n
1. -1 1 ,t d . 1~l tic l r th O wil 'Ic " 11 . 'ta , t t i : (.
,v, ~ ~ ~ .- l l .. , 'l .~id :{ c it' ii t .i~ xu c I~
'it~~i viI, '.~;.).a.~arL';)C' o20f t he slIudge
iii': i 'ow It I I, apyparent, rc Ilot iitnsh ip between
It h ii ad water depth
'a i~ .a~ V :ii'~ ~.~'ueathat the sil-day ] fractions
a ''a' i v< t. o~ thait thoi r iigru,1Z1ed masses
- a..V i'tri t i's of' bottom sedimients.
.4<"' W at icic b~ flottomt sediments
.:-i 'H rc': . ' w t 1ii Protec t ion A2 .fl(v during M'larch,
a ~ ~ V . I) I' c ,' i o 11 So aa sar e e
:l we rc it I shlti ppe.I in afroze coflli -
'''0 i at ci I ~'ad or vol a t i I e so I ids , oil I nd
:i. : t k .. i til itogein , total phosph(,r-
* .a t v 'a aI '111d :aljI a t i vi tv . 'The
'I.;,\ vm i.~ i(I it( n n it Ler 1 rt'tLI L iou] of t he data
I- ilt k111 Ii -tLr i t in) let ter report
a '. ( 'I ,,nc I til1edi ha It a I I sed inment s
11 ( I o C I Ifl in I."s 1), in i t shIto t Id
* .. t ''I il 'Ii 1 - 1o At id. "Ct1W,1 -d o01
I, y41,r Ir',i:; wi 'itI lsipscm1 I ar
i ' pi it ;)' :1it I ls inL te sedimtent t rom
~p I miii 3 i (0111 1t ti C( t Cot
lit t''m- l l er-
ii .! ;tl Ii
' t ik.u- i n Ikttom' svu i l'n ts. A-; "'In- 0 h
a.iI ni er ti ver biotLtom s Ld imen ts or 0 s 10SLi iCe '1 nt ellt. *~0
c .t ud' rt. 'reISenIted in IP 'I .41t
L' c)l to it ra th1e r %1 OX l: t MO St S t t t i 0 It, t
c ~e otnot cs t o 'VLahle 4) t ha t the ubiquitous
I, A"ilr i it i -h ell ( 1) Comprounds wiere cietected in h Io i 01
)7. L!'I[ions to LIteurfor e k'ji th I1( e Leer iiat ion(i
lie '1: >) una bt th r ee s anne s.
2.~~~ o vI o::
I ':(?nirail Charn eston Harbor, h istorical>: one o f
:I 1 1yto i irrs or.i the At lant i L CoastL, is :orme; 1-v the
'I C I o p C, A shl IeyV and La.;ndo 1Z ivers It ha1 s an1-
.i21~ 0) C lt 1-f -tur(. it ufs andI a depth penerally be tv-eun 10 and
I.: 10. L The e limrblor i s k'ha-irac ter ist Ic o f a s trat i-
I~ Ir d ii d ied dens it ies The t idal iorism
- , ' ) no! III(!n the averaze :re2shwa ter inflow- s
tl0 :s it( tidal ra-c- in Charlest on 'iarbc'r is about
I nor osnt r Harbo r is n ormial v' s t ra ifdb aiit
* o j OtO ii- -nuh 'rushehr tLiroup.it01it MOs-t of thle
r od-ls o 1 I i jh river il: ni t Iu ,ouo r -- I- ver S
it ini t he v ic in it, oft th c a rbo r inloilt : to 1'ecorie
I iit L 1;tt t 11 :t e r (,at o r 1- the 1hor; ir (or h ip
n* d .t I hmove , time( Ltmeuc ma or r I vo 1-: k- ( '11
I tr Ito C arbIor a re th[ 's I c-. thuc Ci(or-c and
o, o K t o l 0 ' ' a :i0 .om ai r i xTliI cb 'neai~ d he,'t t
h*r t!, o 1 I~ I, I ~ o 0,, tt IY
o ':rl ii 2 0 Ot I i:n 'it t hrw .,1 -
0P 0P4
%S
water inflow. The Wando River is similar to the Ashley and drains
about 115 square miles. The Wando is also tidal for its entire
length with minor freshwater inflow. -
2.09.1.4 The Cooper River is the most important tributary
in that it provides the major source of inflow. The Cooner was
originally a relatively small coastal plains stream having a water-
shed of 720 sauare miles. Its averaqe flow at the "Tee", the con-
fluence of its East and West Branches where most of its inflow I 0
had been received, was about 72 cfs. The diversion in 1942 of
a part of the Santee River's flow into the Cooper River basin for
hydropower generation increased the average flow of the Cooper
River to 15,600 cfs. Data on discharges through the Pinopolis
power plant are presented in Table 5.
2.09.2 Ground water. A compilation of existing data
on -round water was recently Drepared by the U. S. Geological I 0
Survev in cooperation with the South Carolina Water Resources
Commission (Reference 7). Pertinent excerpts from this report
are presented in the following paragraphs.I]
"The anuifers in the study area may be divided for the purnose
of discussion into unconfined aquifers, those in which the water "
confined aquifers which are bounded. In many cases unconfined
* 0aquifers and surface drainage are parts of one system and there
is an hydrologic interchange of water between the confined and
unconfined aquifers. Most of the drv-weather flow in manv streams
may be rejected recharge of confined aquifers underlying the area.
The relation between the surface-water and ground-water parts of
the system should be kept in mind during the following discussion.
Unconfined Aquifers
Outcrops of southeastward dipning rocks of marine origin, surficial •
dune, beach sands, and possibly some old filled stream channels .
compose the material for the shallow unconfined acuifers in the
area.
24
*~~~ ~~~~~ W
The princirZIl us, of uInconf ned aquifers in the study area is on
some of the coastal islands. These systems utilize a fresh-water
lens floatin, on salt water in beach and dune sands. The fresh-..
water- ,llt-witer interface is likely a zone of mixing in which the
salt content increases rapidly both vertically and laterally. Be-
cause of the relatively small difference in the specific gravity
and infreCuent fluctuation of the levels, a water svstem usinp a S
fresh-water lens floating on salt water must be carefully planned
and manac:ed. Overpumning will produce a mound of salt water under
the well in response to excessive drawdown therebv contaminating
the system. Although systems such as these have been successfully
used for years on these islands they have limited use as sources
of larce supply of fresh water. Their dependence on timely rain-
fall for recharge makes these svstems particularly vulnerable to
encroachment of salt water during extended dry periods. They are
also very vulnerable to contamination from the surface.
Confined Aquifers
Several separate hvdrologic zones that are bounded by relatively
impermeable beds occur below the unconfined aquifer in the study
area. The quality of water in these zones varies both areally
within the same aquifer as well as between aquifers.
Water Properties of the Confined Aquifers
Cooper Marl. - Shallow confined aquifers mav be present where the
Cooper Marl of 01 iocene age occurs or where the old stream channels,
as described bv Bond (1970) were bounded by relatively impermeable
sediments. However, the use of these aquifers is very limited.
Santee LIimestone. - The Santee Limestone of middle Eocene age is
widely used as an aquifer in the studv area. Wells completed in
the Santee limestone yield about 200 to 500 gpm (gallons per minute)
25
I L S S S S S S S S S S S S S S 5
(12.6 to 31.5 I/s) (liters per second) and ranp e in denth from
less than 50 feet (15 m) to ab~out 500 feet (152 m) in the
vicinity of Charleston. Water levels were reported as much as 0
150 feet (46 :-.) below rmean seai level in the acui fer near
Charleston in 1963. Excessive lowering of water level could
Cause movement of water with a high chloride content to contain-
inate some wells. While the source of the poor riual itv water S
is net known, it may be old sea water (connate water) diluted
with fresh water (incoriete Flushing of the aquLifer) or salt
w\ater enterino the anuifer in coastal areas as the result of the
removal of fresh water by oump ing, or inadequate and faulty well
construct ion. Oeiiorted chloride in water taken from the anuifer
rang ,e f ro7 less than 20 to 4,500 mg /i (mill igrams per l iter)...
P Iac. ' 1i n-o Forma tion. - Produc ing wells wi thin the aci.uifers of
this formation range from about 100 feet (30 m) in the northern
pairt of the area to more than 300 Feet (152 mi) inthe Charleston
area . Yields from these wells vary from a1 few tens of gallons
'I mitte (a few liters pur second) to several hundred gallons a
minute (several hulndre.d I i ters ncr s~econd) .
lciee2 and l81aclk Creek o(rm at ions. -These format ions are late
Cretaiceotis in age ( and li holoc ical iv are similar, so much so that
iv r,, nnk.f'irfernt i:ited in m-os-t Io . ,. Charalcteristic shifts
in tlie nactiraljai l ray. to-s-hi to discern s;imilar zones and
i i, in t -:ntit i c p ieb - of tormait: ion hreak<s. The depth to the
LP the PLeedee rang-es from about 1 50 feet (46 mi) in the
err irt ()F the airea to ;ihout 700 feet (.213 m ) in the
* ~ irI es !t 1n aI r-Ca. The thiiickness of t lie Peedee Cormat ion varies
Ij i'!ItV lv hut i- O generally about 400 feet (122 m).
1P 4P V VS 0 0 0 0 0
The Black Creek Formation unconformablv underlies the Peedee Forma-
tion and the depth to the top is about 550 feet (168 m) in the north-
ern part of the area to about 1,000 feet (305 m) at Charleston. •
The Black Creek Formation thickens considerably coastward, ranging
from about 550 feet (168 m) in the northern mart of the area to more
than 1,000 feet (305 m) at Charleston.
The water producing zones in the Peedee Formation have low transmis-
sivities and yield small amounts of poor quality water especially
alonq the coast. Water from wells greater than 700 feet (213 m)
in depth generallv has chlorides in excess of 500 mg/l.
The major .roducinA aouifer in the Black Creek Formation is a coarse
sand near the bottom of the formation. Other minor water nroducing
sands occur in the upper part of the formation but the water is of
cuestionable nuality.
Pssiblv the first known well drilled into this zone was in Charleston
near Oueen and leeting Streets in 1817. The exact location of the
well is nat known and the records have apparently been lost. Water
in this well was reported to have been under pressure head sufficient !
to raise it 20 to 30 feet (6 to 9 m) above land surface. In 1823, theC.=
first well drilled by the Charleston City Council... was
drilled at the fire station at Wentworth and Meeting Streets.
@1 This well was drilled to a depth of 1,260 feet (384 m) and had an
artesian head of 25 feet (8 m) above land surface. The yield was
reported to have been small. A second well was reported to have been
drilled near this site in i49, and a third in 1856, for which
0 little or no record is available. They are both reported to have 0
s1ail Vields.
A ,,ell drill ink, at 'arion Square in Charleston in 1878 to a depth
of 1,070 feet (600 m) was reported to have a static head of more
than 92 feet (2) m) aInd a vield of 465 gpm (29.4 l/s).
A well at Fort M!oultrie, (,el 16) was drilled to a depth of 1,385
feet (422 ri) in 104. This .ell was renorted to have flowed at
1()0 _'PM (6. 1 /-). S
27
L-
Well 64 drilled at the Charleston Water Department on George
Street to a depth of 1,435 feet (437 m) was reported to have
flowed at 300 gpm (18.9 l/s).
Several wells ranging in depth from 1,800 to 2,300 feet (549
to 701 m) have been drilled in the vicinity of Charleston and
Mount Pleasant. One of these wells was a test well drilled to
a depth of 2,292 feet (699 m) by the town of Mount Pleasant in
1969. This well (163) was reported to have a static water
level of 32 feet (9.8 m) above land surface and produced 750
"pn (47.3 1/s) with a drawdown of more than 132 feet (40 n).
The production well at this site was drilled to a depth of
1,919 feet (585 m) and produced 800 gpm (50.4 1/s). A later
production w, ell (167) constructed by the town of Mount Pleasant
-.,a-; drilled to a depth of 2,035 feet (620 m).
T1he water from these ,,ells is a sodium bicarbonate type of-
water. The chloride content is within acceptable limits ex-
cert for the well '16) at rort "loultrie on Sullivans Island.
However, tihe fluoride content is several times the recommended
level for drinking water in all these wells.
[)issolved solids determined from water samples from wells 163
and 167 .anged from 1,000 to 1,300 ng/1.
Tuscaloosa Formation. - The Tuscaloosa Formation of early Late
Cretaceous age is a reiional aquifer in much of the Coastal
Plain of South Carolina. This formation unconformablv underlies
the Black Creek Fori-it ion. The top of the Tuscaloosa ranges p
om about 1 ,000 -eet (3() 7-) in the northern part of the area
to more than 2,100 feet (640 m) in the Charleston area. The
need to d r i I w l I Is . o ,nouch to n enetrate the Tuscaloosa 9'orr' t ion in the lr,',a 5i ot !eLen necessarv because of the
ahiinlarwe 07 -.,',tCr ira thie h vaillow,,'er aruifers.
28
l W W
• D •
* • . . -..- '. ' - -.
47
A well 20 miles (32 kin) (kilometers) south of Charleston at
Seabrook Island was drilled into the Tuscaloosa but did not
encounter any water producing sands. Until more data can be .
obtained. the oroductivitv of the Tuscaloosa Formation along
the coasLt cannot be stated."
2.i0. .:ater Oualitv.
2.10.1 Charleston Harbor. The water nualitv of
Charl eston Iarbor is similar to that of the Ashley, Cooper,
and Wando ,ivers irom which it is formed. According to
thu latet state classifications, Charleston Harbor is not
-uit iflle for solin, or the harvesting of oysters for mar-
,t ,urosos. The water qualitv of the outer harbor is usually
ni,<hur becausc of the diluting effect of the ocean. Recently
const riictcl ,aste treatment facilities along the lower Cooper
< A>;i e': 1'ers have led to an imorovement in the water qual-
Lt\ ol Lhe iiarbor from the condition described in the Federal
'.<ater 'ollution Control Administration report of 19,66. (Reference
8). A trendl of continued improvement in water nuality is ex-
oected as ;a result of these facilities and others in the plan-
ning or construction stare. Recent water quality data collected
by the S. C. Denartment of Health and Environmental Control are
Treseoted in Tble 6.
2.1. . :Cooper R\iver. The water quality of the Cooper
:2.iv-:r i.4 -,crallv .,ood but according to the latest state classif-
ic.it ion,,, that rortion of the river from U. S. Highway 52 to a
01) jnt , pr)n,:Ki:iatulv 3) miles above the junction of the Ashlev and I ]
Cooper iv,'ers is ,Laifi jd as Class B (waters suitable for domes-
ic saprl- i t .- co7 )lete trcatment in accordance with reouirements
t, ti L, rol inn >t;ite lBoard of Ilcith, also for propagation
! Is, i:ii tla l ind acricultrli !es ,n6 other uses recuiring
t ,., r ,, < ,r al it-,) and that port ion below that point to the
i kli, 1d Cooner Rivers is classified as Class SC
29
7 C
(waters suitable for crabbing, commercial fishing and any other
usages except bathing or other shellfishing for market purposes,
also for uses requiring water of lesser quality) (Reference 9). -
These restrictions are based on bacterial concentrations, the
source of which is thought to be drainage from storm sewers, septic
tanks, malfunctioning treatment plants, point sources of untreated
U human wastes, and domestic livestock wastes. S
.10.2.1. All domestic sewage discharged into the lower
Cooper River is now subjected to primary treatment and chlorina-
tion. Approximately 10 percent of the sanitary wastes from North
Charleston and practically all of such wastes from the community
of Mt. Pleasant receive secondary treatment. Sanitary wastes from
Chi~rleston are discharzed after nrimary treatment into the mouth
of the Ashley River. A list of discharge sources, their approximate
daily: discharges, and type treatment are presented in Table 7.
2.10.2.2. The West Virginia Pulp and Paper Company has by
far the largest volume of industrial discharge into the Cooper
River. These wastes are now subjected to primary treatment before
being discharged into the Cooper River about 5 miles above Charles-
ton, and will be subjected to secondary treatment by 1975. United
Piece Dye Works discharges approximately 3.0 million allons daily
of untreated wastes into Goose Creek which empties into the Cooper
River about 6 miles above Charleston. Facilities to convey this
vaste to the North Charleston Municipal sewage treo&ment plant are
now under construction. All other industrial effluents, with the
* exception of cooling water, receive at least primary treatment.
'.10.2.3. The South Carolina Public Service Authority oper-
,tes four steam generating units below the Pinopolis Dam ha-in- a
'apac itv of 412,000 kw. Cool ing, water is obtained frr. returned
to the tailrace canal. The volume of flow in the tailrace canal is 6
iff ic lent to prevent a volat ion of state standards relating to
thermal pollution.
I (I
* S 5 - . 5
6 0
2.10.2.4. One of the major industrial developments along
the CoonTer River is the Bushy Park Industrial Area which consists
of land set aside for industrial development between the Back and
C.oo~er !livers. Tli& development includes a dam across Back ;'iver
which forms a reservoir and a diversion canal from the West Branch
of the Cooner River into the Back River Reservoir. Bushy Park was
originally a joint venture of Charleston and Berkeley Counties
and the City of Charleston to attract industries to the Charleston
area. The City of Charleston now owns about 80 acres and the re-
mainder (about 4,300 acres) is distributed among the following in-
dustries: S. C. Electric and Gas Company operates steam generating
tacilities, Verona Corporation operates a chemical plant, General
)vnamics operates a plant which makes liquid natural gas tanks, Du
P ont is building a "Dacron" polyester rlant, and Moore-McCormick
* has acquired land but has not begun construction. There are no
vacant sites remaining at Bushy Park.
.10.2.5. The effluent from industries at Bushy Park is
discharged into the Cooper River after treatment, which is considered
adecuate to prevent degradation of water quality in the river. •
S. C. Electric and (;as uses a 105 foot square oxidation oond for
treating sanitary wastes of ahout 50 employees. Retention time
in the nond is about 30 days and the effluent is discharged with
the cooling water into the Cooper River. The volume of cooling 0
water is abouit 463 mgdI and uinder conditions of the state permit must
not raise the ambient water temperature more thin 4 degrees fahren-
heit during the fall, winter, or spring and 1.5 degrees fahrenheit
Sduring, the summer mionthis. The Verona Corporation has a permit to
dischare on to 25 mgd, but recent actual measurement by the 7. C.
!'o]I t ion Control Author itv showed a discharge of about 2.6 to 3.5
-"02. Treaitrent facilities; Include an equalization and neutraliza-tion ha r , t'o eraLc : , and it-, , :,Yilization and settling
pOd:5. (;n.. IIivnamics has; a st;te permit to discharge up to 15,U00
'i'i LOcos T)cr =a. aste treatment includes passage throughi a mixed
at i \'ati It id akag, e treatment facility and chlorination. The
31
0
Du Pont plant is not completed but their sanitary permit allows
a discharge of 2,000 gallons per dav. This effluent will be
treated in an extended aeration package treatment plant and
chlorinated.
2.10.2.6. The most recent comprehensive water quality
studies on the Cooper :River were conducted bv the U. S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency during October and November, 1971.
These studies were published in April, 1974 by the S. C. Water
Resources Commission as part of the Cooper River Environmental
Study (Reference 10). The main objective of the study was to
develor some capability for predicting changes which might re-
sult from rediversion of the Cooper River. To accomplish this
objective, the EPA collected samples during periods when the
daily discharge to the Cooner River from Lake MToultrie averaged
20,550 cfs (October 1971) and about 3,000 cfs (November 1971).
A discussion of the pertinent data contained in this EPA report
is presented in the following paragraphs. The stations referred
to in the following paragraphs are shown in Figure 14. A summary
of all physical, chemical, and microbiological data collected at 6
each station during the two sampling periods is presented in
Table 8.
a. Temperatures. Average water temperature
at the sampling sites ranged from 20.8 to 22.10C during the
October study and 17.2 to 18.30C during the November study.
Extremes in temperature were 20.0 to 23.50C during ()ctober and
14.5 to 22.5°C during November.
b. pH. Average ilI values at the [PA sampling
sites ranged from 7.2 to 7.7 in October with extremes of 6.4 to
8.3 units. The extremes in November ranged fror 6.3 to 8.5 units
with average values of 7.3 to 7.7 units. 0
C. Dissolved o:ygen. )issolved oxygen (DO)
concentration extremes in the reach studied ranged from 3.4 to
8.4 mg/l during October and 5.0 to 8.9 ng,'/ in November. Average
32
DC concentrations ranged from 5.9 to 7.8 mg/l in October and from
0.i to 8.3 m ,/I during November. During October, both the minimum
DO concentration and the lowest average concentrations were measured I-._ 0
at the lower stations (1, 3, and 4). In November, the lowest DO
concentration encountered (5.0 mg/i) occurred at Station 7 at the
bottom. The following text table presents average DO saturation
values at each of the river stations at high and low slack tide. 0
( I.
Average Surface and Bottom Values of PercentSaturation of Dissolved Oxygen
October November 0Station HWS" LWS"* HWS LWS
1-Surface 70.9 75.9 70.5 72.51-Bottom 70.5 67.7 77.7 73.23-Surface 81.0 86.6 71.0 75.43-Bottom 68.5 69.8 68.3 73.94-Surface 82.6 88.6' 76.7 77.5 04-Bottom 79.0 84.7 73.0 73.5
5-Surface 87.6 89.8 80.0 79.65-Bottom 86.3 88.5 80.4 79.3
6-Surface 85.7 84.5' 80.3 80.5*6-Bottom 87.5 85.61 79.6 80.5 S7-Surface 84.3 90.91 73.7 78.97-Bottom 84.3 89.8' 72.7 82.48-Surface 87.8 92.1' 89.4 91.08-Bottom 88.3 93.11 89.9 90.69-Surface 82.8 - 75.6 76.59-Bottom 82.4 - 75.2 71.0
High Slack Tide-v Slack Tide
'Single determination
33
• S S U S S S S S S U S S S • S
Percent DO saturation decreased downstream from Station 8 during
both sampling periods. This reduction in the lower reaches of
the river generally corresponded to an increase in dissolved
solids and chlorides. There was no significant difference in
DO saturation between surface and bottom samples in November,
however, in October, a significant difference existed between
I Stations 3 and 4 at high slack tide and Stations 1, 3, and 4 0
at low slack tide. A-ain, this difference was primarily attri-
buted to increased chloride concentrations occurring near the
bottom of the water column.
d. Biochemical oxygen demand. The five-day
biochemical oxygen demand (BO1) 5 ) levels measured in both the
October and November studies were low at each station (Table 8).
in ,rtober, average 13D 5 levels ranged from 0.8 to 1.1 mg/1 with 0
tbe hiehe:L individual value (2.6 mg/l) occurring at Station 3.
In N'ovember, i,()I)5 concentrations ranged from 0.3 to 1.0 mag/.
e. Chlorides. Chloride concentrations
ranged from 7 to 13,400 mg/l during the October study period and •
8 to 14,800 mg/l during the November study. An average chloride
concentration of 8 mg/l is considered to be the background level
entering, the Cooper River from Lake "loultrie. In October, sur-
face to bottom chloride ratios (S/B ratios) at high slack tide
indicated that a well stratified condition existed in the lower
reach of the river with ratios of 0.266, 0.193, and 0.171 at IStations 1, 3, and 4, respectively, as shown in the following table.
34
w . .
- .
Surface To Bottom Chloride Ratios
October November -0- Station HWS* LWS** HWS LWS
1 0.226 0.137 0.567 0.8023 0.193 0.915 0.499 0.6144 0.171 1.083 0.532 0.4015 1.250 1 000 0.827 1.2416 1.000 1.000 1.067 1.100 0
* 7 0.889 1.000 0.846 1.0008 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.0009 0.889 1.000 1.090 1.083
High Slack TideLow Slack Tide S
"t l,,: ,lack tide, S/B ratios indicated that vertical stratifica-
an occurred onl.y at Station 1 with average S/B ratios changing
tror 0.317 at Station I to 0.915 at Station 3. 71aximum saltwater
ntrusion txtended as far upstream as Station 4 at high slack tide
- i, hot-seen Stat ions 3 and 4 at maximum low tide.
* . -. , ibt er, chloride concentration extremes ranged from 8 to 14,800
Ih-na/I inith average conccntration ranging from 10 to 9,030 mg/l. An
ivcr'ra,;e backt:round concentration of 10 mg/l was being discharged
roin! lake 'oultrie during the sampling period. Surface to bottom
KIrile ratios at high slack tide were indicative of vertical
,t r i! ict -iion at Stations 1, 3, and 4 where average readings were0
. 69 . , and 0.532, respectively.
titin -3, the S/B chloride ratio was 0.827 indicating a non-
t, d ition. At high slack tide during the November study,
0 1 i t, r ii trd, u '2;t reani het..en Stat ion 5 and Station 6. At 5
I. , S/ (Il oride ratios indicated a rather weak vertical
r t t ' i, !t io:i it S [;ition-, I and 3. .,n ireranve q/B chloride ratio
W W
* . V .
of 1.241 at Station 5 along with an average bottom chloride concen-
tration of 29 mg/l indicated a well-mixed, essentially freshwater
condition.
f. Residue. Total nonfilterable residue (total
suspended solids) ranged from an average of 9 mg/i at Station 8 to
an average 37 mg/i at Station 1 during October. In November, total
suspended solids ranged from 6 mg/i at Station 8 to an average of
45 mg/l at Station 3. In both the October and November studies,
the higher concentrations of total suspended matter were measured
near the bottom in those areas affected by saltwater intrusion,
tidal mixing, and industrial pollution.
Volatile suspended matter followed the same general pattern as the
total susoended solids. Volatile solids ranged from an average con-
centration of 3 mg/l at Station 8 to 14 mg/i at Station 1 during
October and from 2 mg/l at Station 8 to 12 mg/i at Station 1 during
November. As with total suspended solids, the higher concentrations
of volatile solids occurred near the bottom at the lower river
stations. 0
g. Nitrogen. Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN)
concentrations were low throughout the study reach during both the
October and November sampling periods. Extreme values ranged from
0.23 to 0.59 mg/i in October and from 0.12 to 1.00 mg/l in November. 0
Ammonia nitrogen concentrations were low at all stations during both
sampling periods. Concentrations ranged from 0.01 to 0.12 mg/i during
october and from less than 0.01 to 0.08 mg/i during November.0
Nitrite-nitrate nitrogen concentrations ranged from less than 0.01 :to 0.12 mg/l in October and 0.01 to 0.21 in November.
h. Phosphorus. otal phosphorus (as/P) concentra-
4 tions were low at all stations during the October study period and •
ranged from 0.02 to 0.08 m-/1. Average concentrations ranged from
0.03 to 0.05 mg/i. Orthorhosnate concentrations (as/P) ranged from
less than 0.01 to 0.07 mg/l during the same period. The highest
36S
36
total and orthophosphate concentrations were measured at Station
During the November study period, total and orthophosphate con-
centrations were generally low at all stations. Total phosphate
concentrations (as/P) ranged from 0.01 to 0.20 mg/l and orthophos-
phate concentrations (as/P) ranged from less than 0.01 to 0.10 mg/l.
i. Organic carbon. Total organic carbon (TOC)
was found to be consistently low at all stations during the October
sampling period. Concentration extremes ranged from 4.0 to 6.0
mg/l and average concentrations ranged from 4.2 to 5.2 mg/l. 0
During the November study, TOC extremes ranged from 3.0 to 10.0
mg/l and average concentrations ranged from 4.6 to 7.7 mg/l. In
general, average TOC concentrations measured in November were 0
slightly higher than October.
Metals. Concentrations of copper, chrominum, "
lead, zinc, manganese, iron, and mercury were measured by the EPA
at Stations 1, 6, 7, and 9 during the October and November study
periods. As might be expected, the highest concentration of metals
was found at the more saline station, Station 1. A summary of
metals data is presented in Table 8.
k. Pesticides. Pesticide concentrations were
measured bv the EPA during the October study period only. Eighteen
pesticides were analyzed from composite water samples collected
aL each stat ion. The fo.l1oing table lists the Y ' esti-
cidus and the minimum detection limit of the anna rocedure.
No T)estfclde levels ere detected above the detection limits used.
6 3
* 0 ~370
* o . - • - . . 5 ° 5. - S . S
7 7. '3 . . . . . . . . .*7%7 V .
Pesticides Analyzed For and Minimum t
Dectection Limits
Ig/1 MinimumPesticide Detection Limit
Aldrin <0.005Lindane <0.002- 0Chlordane <0.05Chiorobenzilate <0.5DDD) <0.01DDE <0.01DDT <0.02Dieldrin <0.01Endrin <0.02Heptachlor Epoxide <0.01Heptachlor <0.005Methoxychlor <0.1Toxaphene <0.25Diazinon <0.2Guthion <0.5Malath ion <0.2Methyl Parathion <0.02Parathion <0.04
1. Bacteria. Station 1 had the highest fecal
coliform densities found during the Cnctoher and N ovember stud% ner-0
10(1 with counts of 830/100 T-1 and 460/100 ml, respectively. The
lowest densities were found at Station where the respective October
and Novembher counts .,ere2 26/1100 il nd 30/100 ml. There was a general
inrcrease in Jdensitics ulo-:nstrcam from Station 8 with a noticeable in-
crease occurr in4 in the vi cia it o'f Stations 6 and 7. The higher
level-; at Stat ion 7 i,'crc r-os- bl v caused by an adjacent housiT7
d deveIo -)me n t o a r-1" dem-, i ic: -;i Iso [icreased downstream of Stat ion
4 most 1 ikulv as a rt-,sul t w i>t entering the river from (loose
*Creek aind from the muni i,-al an,, industrial dJevelopmecnt downstream.
38I
*~~ ~ W 6 W
During October, the mean surface coliform density at Station
1 was four times higher at high slack tide than it was at low
slack tide. A similar observance was made during November ex- P ....0
cept that densities were only about twice as high at high slack
tide. These data suggest a possible upstream movement of wastes
on an incoming tide.
I 0
2.10.3. Wando River. The quality of waters in the
Wando River system is being studied in detail by the S. C. Water
Resources Commission as part of the Wando River Environmental
Quality Study. An interim report on this study was published in
April 1973 (Reference 11). The summary and conclusions section
of the water quality portion of the above report is presented
below. Station locations are shown on Figure 15.
"I. Dissolved oxygen remained fairly high dur-
ing the sampling period (January, 1973) ranging from a low of
7.7 mg/l to a high of 11.4 mg/l with most of the readings greater
than ten. Dissolved oxygen saturation was above 85 percent most
of the time. The lowest dissolved oxygen saturation reading dur-
ing the sampling period was 60 percent and this was coincident
0with a water temperature of 40C. The highest DO saturation was
recorded as 100%. There is an apparent defect in the lower Wando
River as measured by this criterion. Readings are progressively
lower from the Cooper River (Station 1) upstream to the head of
Hobcaw Creek at Station 4 where Lhe lowest average DO saturation
was experienced above Hobcaw Creek (Stations 5-8) DO saturation
improved dramatically. Five-day Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD)
readings ranged from 1.25 mg/l to 5.2 mg/l with an average of
2.68 mg/l. BOD readings were generally higher at the stations
nearer the river mouth. In this study BOD was probably about
normal considering the range of water temperatures which prevailed.
Vhile no rigid standards have been established for water quality
based upon oxygen content alone, the net indication from arbitrary
39
S S U S U U U U U U..... S
critcria for oxygen regimes is that a moderately high water quality
exists in the Wando River as compared to other waters in the
Charleston harbor environs.
2. Turbidity as measured by Secchi disk read-
ings and by turbidimeter is generally low indicating a lack of sus-
pended or colloidal material. Turbidity readings are somewhat higher
at those sampling points nearer the harbor.
3. Fecal coliform bacteria were detected in such
numbers as to substantiate assignment of "SB" classification to these
waters. Some of the individual samples give rise to the belief
that standards could be greatly exceeded at certain times of the year
and under varying flo,, regimes. Station No. 4 located at the head
of liobcaw Creek 4ave consistently higher readings than did Station
No. 3 located at the mouth of the tributary. 2'tations 1-4 produced
ceneral lv higher counts than the upstream samcling points No.'s 5
through 8. The sources of human-waste pollution thus appear to be
associated with Cooper River materials which ultimately enter the 0
Wando and are transported upstream, and with materials that enter
Hobcaw Creek presumably from the adjacent residential areas.
4. Heavy metals consisting of cadmium, chromium,
copper, lead, and mercury were tested for and all except lead appeared
singly or in. combination in some of the samples. None of the sam-
ples were lead positive. No other metals were assayed.
Cad iurm was detected in water samnles on three of ]
the samrling d,(s but not at all stations simultaneously. Concentra-
tions ranwed i hi-it as 45 1-/1 wlich is within the range of some
drinki nc'.aters (.C)4 uc/ to 00 ug! ) but exceeds the U. . Public
Health crvict max ;Mvur r ilowabI t for interstate carriers (10 ug/l). 0
Toxic lev(,l o: 200 u,/i are r oorted to be lethal to fish.
(Ihroiuri -is detected on only one sampling dav
and at onl," one ol the cial'It stations. This single reading was
40
S 0 0 0 0 0U
-)43 u, n /1 il. . 'LL< ton t iros the m-axir.um 17. S. Public
Health Sr-. xn t i itind.,r.i or dr i n Ing water. The magnitude
o!- this ret.,lin.: iad thyi, t! W. tizat oniy ou of eighty samples I .
\.stS II,) ; ' > A' i. 101 on t h '.a ic uracV of the
tc, t or ii"- c, !id . -n* !n, . .. i 1_( no inference is drawn
fron this p..rticular assay, it is not likely that chromium
of1t I ,rs ,: te,-I th oroil . In any future quality assess- 0 5
7'11 , 1r rcin W et 0t ion oroc csses should be conducted with
CLs p ia I cI r
'ierk u : ,,rrOd i:a 7-' of the, 0 samples and ranged in con-
T:et, rat io! )ct,,,e n 0.1 ncU/i and 3.10 ug/1. These readings
a\verce I .73 n/ I which exceeds the t'. S. Public Vealth
aerv i >. standard oF 0.50 u--/1, or '. part per billion. The
nat r v I I o, c! i rri n thbndana e and distribution of mercury in
oi0 ,c otti .c on ;ts for a nortion of the detected amounts
of this elIent Lt. For examnle, a recent study of mercury in soils
over tlk. nat in (ShI ackILettt-, 1971) showed a geometric average
o -h ) rt -,r hil I iol: (vc/]) for the eastern United States.
nK 1U 11di Lnts usun Il v exhibit Ii igher background concen-
trat ions thn does water. This is the result of the affinity
ir cir !tcd s aid so il material togcther with the other-
,.", t r1 i Iib i it', of mercurial comnounds. In addition,
t I :"k : at, r IItains .3 ug/1 of rercurv. (H & 1, 1959).
i: lc , doe- not nek, essar 1iv imn lv a point
. :. -I Lt; ot a tou s -an le testing]', - '. ,, "'l ' Tet/ s occur and that no
,tr ,: ,il anta':its neastlrable •
, '. , ., ,,: .. -l as othters, but that
.t ry -,,:-,nt iI to cel1 growth
e I S
in some of the plants and animals that are a part of the local
ecosvstem.
2.10.4. Ashley River. The Ashley River is somewhat
turbid and its banks are highly urbanized. According to the
latest state classifications, the Ashley River is not suitable .
for swimming or the harvesting of oysters for market purposes.
Although no recent data are known to be available concerning
quality of Ashlev River waters, it is believed that considerable
improvement in water quality has recently been achieved as a re-
sult of newly constructed waste treatment facilities. Prominent -"
among these are tne two secondary sewage treatment facilities
operated by the St. Andrews Public Service District which handle "
most of the wastes trom the urban area adjacent to the Ashley
River. In addition, al. sewage discharged into the mouth of the
Ashley River irom the City ot Charleston receives primary treat-
ment and chlorination. S. C. Electric and Gas Company's Hagood
electric generating plant discharges 67.82 mgd of cooling water into
the Ashley River. Current discharge sources along the Ashley River,
their approximate daily discharge and type of treatment are pre-
sented in Table 9.
2.11. Air Quality. The Charleston County Health Depart-
munt monitors air quality in the project area. Air quality varies
with industrial development, the volume of automobile traffic, and
local air circulation patterns. These factors interact in such a
way that the highest suspended particulate content is found over
parts ot peninsular Charleston. The average suspended particulates
measured during the period July through September 1973 at a station
on the corner of Calhoun Street and Lockwood Drive ranged from
29.48 to 37.66 ugm. Another peninsular station is located on the
Queen Street Fire Station, where the geometric mean level of sus-
pended particrilates v-.'as reported to h, 48.1 ug/m during the period
November 1972 to >Iirch 1973. These levels are ,ell within the Federal
standard which is 7-) llg/m ] 3and the State standard which is 60 ug/m 3 .
2.12. CliatI. The prevailing winds arc southerly in the
spring and sutumi r and northerIv during the fall and winter. The
42
* U S S S S S S • 5 5 5 5
-..1
6P v S
I) i! t !1 0 Lcco n haIsi i-ermnr iia cf Fec t onl Char ILeston s .
i, !nct- Is I , thi :in it in c itv terlrernture mav register
FO ID !0 iO I rr Iek L- hilir LhArlt ttlI recorded at the of rnor t -
11 111; tI ci -l :ii '-1 inJIL' i I liclice iui also cause
e vs cl ul rtio to !), !IIwered several degrees.
1) 10n L 1 1 i' un )l ccemher through Fehruarv,
Ic t I rj T; it ' ih 18 :nercent of the .nnulI total;
I-r n"I ciiA i ron ~rc I throlildi Maw verages ahout 20 percent
L~iI. 1:2>1 I L i I A' r cvipcri t ure of .'0 JIe-rees or less is
-WA '<1 c . n- hil' i nr'1M _Iuirries mav occur in
T2 '*. 521 itmu~ i., carel" measured.
. e smm-cs1cc wrm alnd iiumid; hovever, the
t::calr I~ C1011 L ie c ih' Me e S. ;-cortv-one percent of
Ill<~ tc; sV~c'vL icur is miodera te and sunnyv from late
'I'!!' ' L 1 ~'o .v L 'i r The coaistal area is suhlect to
111~~ r' n. [11> lc1.1h sur-it.e r and fall, 1ci th hiurri cane visitation
cl r iu' ' 0 tn il a ,\iil1ist. The h ilzes t recorded hurricane
11 Ic L id- i .O aIlke r-can ilot, water during the '.:mUst
K i.. ),. i liioriiiat ion below' vas compiled b%'' the
iti ion' ait heCharleston Mlunicipal Airnort,
r1 i:I lI i shed !)v Lie L-iv ironmen tal Data
I :i.:! n I nd A\t::..srh er i c Adm in is tra tion, V'. S.
.3.,"E1,11:()DO,0 .'ji C; A, DATA F'OR ]PERt.'OD 0O" RFCCJVD
14 2
. .F . .. .e .. .. 'c; 29 . ,7 . 71. __
.? .
,,_ , 14.2
,I,25.F,, ) N C', 2
(1 .. Pi '
I2 2
q *. i .k, l .. . Cv. 75.8 St 2r:y ............ ./,? 55. 3.2 3]S
JK .:. 2, 6 429 28 .8 6 2Ye .. . .6. .. 72 . 5 4 16 2\'873' 4-9. 70 q 1 N .V 28
.1 t.1 1 ~ I 19 71, Lthe Nar ine Resou rces 1) 1v is ion
C .. .... I 'I 9 darine Resources hrartent tre-
ii, i iti~i : i> > ,it ion of vetlands to determine t!ht
I i"irnlIilands withiin thie (Aiirluston
.. .Conducted under i 'nt i .. .th
Ye r.. . is part of an .4 t9r iiir valui2s
-.- t<1. IQC, 1972, (Re ucren' Ic). ohe
,,0!, i ,r, i { '. l l :,,rd 'a i e R s u c s lv ,a t v t n e
*, .6 i,,.::,: ,U S , S n~ S o of we l n s t S determine* t
..
final report is available for public review in the Charleston
District office. A discussion of the pertinent aspects of
this report is presented in the following paragraphs. 6
2.13.1.1. Charleston Harbor historically has been
recognized for its value to fish and wildlife resources. The
productive role of lands in this area has been profoundly illus-
trated and stressed by Lunz (References 13 and 14). The vegeta-
tion of the marshlands complex in Charleston Harbor is varied
and it is now recognized that the types of vegetation present
play a key role in the processes of biological productivity. 0
Research by Odum (Reference 15) has shown that salt marsh
grasses, by converting inorganic nutrients and sunlight into
plant tissue, act as energy transfer mechanisms to consumer
organisms in the estuarine system. Field observations and ex-
perimental trawling operations in the harbor system have clearly
shown that tremendous quantities of dead marsh vegetation are
transported to adjacent estuarine waters during the winter and
early spring at times of extremely high tides. Teal (Reference
16) has calculated that approximately 45 percent of the total
plant material is transported out of Geo. gia salt marshes into
the estuary. This is also true in the Charleston area where
the tidal range is large. Dead grass may become waterlogged
and sink to the bottom or may be physically as well as biologically
disintegrated into particulate organic detritus, becoming food
for various invertebrates. These organisms are in turn eaten by
small fish which are subsequently consumed by larger predators,
etc. Thus, the link between fish and marsh is evident according
to Smalley (Reference 17). It is estimated that only about 7
percent of the marsh grass is eaten by insects, with the remainder
* being consumed by detritus feeding organisms such as amphipods, •
isonods and decapod crustaceans (shrimp and crabs), and fishes.
* 0 45 0
* W U S U S U S U S S S S S
2.13.1.2. The importance of marshlands to estuarine pro-
ductivity is not limited to the detritus they produce. Applying
Teal's work (Reference 16) to comparable spartina marsh in the P .. S.
harbor, we postulate that algae may account for up to one-fourth
of the organic material produced in a salt marsh. In fact, it
has been shown by Pomeroy (Reference 18) that net algae production
is constant throughout the year. I 0
2.13.1.3. Productive salt marshes of Charleston Harbor
are dominated by smooth cordgrass which occurs as tall, inter-
mediate and short forms, depending on elevation. Tall cordgrass
grows vigorously in areas below an elevation of 1.59 m. (5.2 feet)
msl in Charleston Harbor and is the most productive of the three
types. Odum (Reference 15) reported that smooth cordgrass produces
approximately 2,000 g/m2 or 10 tons per acre (dry weight) in Georgia
marshes; this figure is applied to the entire crop of this sDecies
in Georgia. While there is evidence to infer that Georgia marshes/2
do not average 10 tons per acre (actually 2,240 g/m ) as reviewed
by Wass and Wright (Reference 19), there are data indicating that2 0 0I smooth cordgrass averages more than 4.4 (985 g/m ) in North Carolina
saltmarsh (Reference 20). These data suggest that annual production
in South Carolina saltmarshes would range between 2.9 and 4.4 tons
per acre at a minimum. Charleston Harbor marshes would probably
I be so*aewhat higher in production than the State's average since the 0
cordgrass so prevalent in this area appears to be extremely vigorous
in certain areas. Nutrients from sewage pollution in years past
may have been beneficial in stimulating growth even though the water
quality was degraded. Marshall (Reference 21) showed that cordgrass
marsh receiving sewage plant effluent produced more biomass, reached
its pc k biomass sooner and was apparently not injured by fertiliza-
tion.
2.13.1.4. Black needlerush is also commonly found in
Charleston Harbor marshlands. It is generallv considered the least
important of the common marsh plants (Reference 22) and is usually
associated with higher fringe areas above the mean high water line.
46
w w w w U U U S S 5 0 0 0 5 0 5
However, during this survey black needlerush was found in mixed
stands with smooth cordgrass in upstream locations of transition
from salt to brackish and fresh water. I 5
2.13.1.5. In the upper Cooper River near Goose Creek
and upstream to the "Tee", the marsh vegetation gradually
changes to a brackish and freshwater type. Brackish water marshes p 0
in the Charleston Harbor study area occupy a transitional zone
area between true salt marsh and fresh water marshes. These marshes
are prevalent in the upper Cooper from the area of its confluence
with Yellow House Creek to the vicinity of Bushy Park and Moreland I S
Landing. While many of the salt marsh species still occur in this
area, there is a trend toward greater diversity including such
species as bulrushes, cattail, giant cordgrass, etc.
2.13.1.6. Plant zonation in the lower harbor is more
subtle and difficult to define where unconsolidated stands of
smooth cordgrass are found. Generally, there are four zones that
can be delineated from the water's edge to the woodland: (1)
the "edge marsh" or tall smooth cordgrass zone; (2) the "low meadow"
or medium smooth cordgrass; (3) the "saltgrass meadow" or stunted "
smooth cordgrass - salt grass, salt meadow cordgrass zone; and
(4) the "high meadow" or salt meadow cordgrass - black needlerush - * Sglasswort - sea ox-eve zone.
2.13.1.7. The different plant zones in the Charleston
Harbor area are assigned to a single priority based on overall
value to marine resources. These priorities are as follows: •
Priority 1. To include areas of highest value to fisheries and
wildlife resources; consisting primarily of regularly flooded,
high salinity marshes. Regularly flooded, brackish marsh could
be included dependent on locaLion. Vi gorous smooth cordgrass
(medium and tall growth) as described in vegetative zones (1)
and (2) above is the dominant vegetative type.
47
* U U U S U S U U U U U U U U •
Priority II. To include areas of second highest value to fisheries
and wildlife resources; consisting primarily of regularly flooded
salt and brackish marsh. Regularly flooded fresh marsh could also
be included. Smooth cordgrass (medium ,rowth) a, descrLbed in vege-
tative zone (2), is the dominant vegetative type. Regularly flooded
types are included dependent on location.
Priority III. To include areas of third highest value to fisheries
and wildlife resources; consisting of irregularly flooded salt,
brackish and fresh marsh, flats and barren zones. Black needlerush,
salt meadow cordgrass, sea ox-eve, salt grass, glasswort, and stunted
smooth cordgrass are generally found in vegetative zones (3) and
(4). Areas within this priority are classified as realistic formanagement.
Priority IV. To include areas of little value to fisheries and wild-
life resources; consisting of irregularly flooded salt and bracl ish
marsh, flats, barren zones and areas significantly altered by develop-
ment. These areas are not classified since they have very little
potential for management. Outer margins of diked snoil areas, un-
diked spoil areas and areas fouled by industrial or other wastes
are characteristic of this tvpe.
2.13.1.8. The S. C. kWildlife and .arine ''esources Department
has assigned the following priorities to the marsh areas along the
river systems (V<ando, Cooper, Ashley) of Charleston Harbor. The
marsh alonc the a.ando River 0 "stem is made up of 5,471 acres of I -
Priority T marsh and 976 acres of Priority 11 marsh. There are
essentially no areas of either Priority TI or TV along this svstem.".
2.13.1.9. The Cooper River System las 9,172 acres of *Prioritv TT marsh, 30 acres of Priority T41 marsh and 1,641 acres
of Prioritv IV marsh. Therc are no Prioritv 1 marshes ',ithin this
svster.
S • o_ ._
P1r iori t % I ma rsh 1 1 )27 1,. r cv- o f Pr i o)r i v I I ma r sh, 508 acres
of Prioritv I fT mirsh and no Prioritv 1 V imarsh.
S0
3. 1.. Iarl tstLon liaarrk I can t a in; 3, 14'8 ac,-res of
Pr iori tx I nrsh ',006 aocres of :rorLvIImaSi., 116 acres
0t' Pri Orit 1 t V tTIZImarsi :111d noC Pr iori tx v, fV :ia rcsh
2I..1 .112. othu-r abundant plant spcades- in the Charleston 0
ha nlor a rcai inc luu but airc no10 lil"it cd to wax m r tie, sea-mvr tie,
mairshI c Iuer , c iaba 1 p: I ut t0o, pocc 1' 2W2L, ed , e, stiff fimhristviis, -
c ra crss , rL a;ttasrn r c' ctad ir , ool l v nna, e cet gu I., southern
magnol ia , hi ack gum, red IP iv, blacuk cherrv, , water oak, I ive oak, S
sands rs , ha mud aa a :reenh riiar, soft-st em bul ru shI, southern
w,,ilId r ic e, all i ',a ILo r .e , na rrovJ-1 caved cait ta ilI, ch1iinese tal low-
tree, pennywort, svikc-roshi, smartwccd, salt-cedar, aster, coco,
4and matrsh mallow,. 0
2.13.2. V~ll~. \itlu it-, igroat natural resources and
varietv of hlab 1tat t c hi l nclude marshes , high lands, swamps,
£ ~~andi frIns d 'sl wa tor s , Chan les;ton Ha rhor and surrounding areas
abouind w'ith a wida vriety of wildl ife species. Not only are there
ai I argo iu::ha r ot r sI at eals ut thtarc are many seasonal
\.'sitrsvih a a, cirmmt n ad/or pa'ss through this section
-. 13.2 . j ns . liar, arc, a -reat nurmber of resident
anu sa, son1 ii rd i n t ni oh r I ts wia hor area . Many water-
10'1 i'a. cy .' '>~in~ sof tha~ue r including
4 r nl k,, n ,. ' .) 1i u ei~ob -winged
tat'1Il 'n-L ipm 0 cal a I r,-a~l cainvashack, ring-
du,'(: k, 'rca tur ar~ L'i acaon gOHlulcv, huffle-
a'~i~ 1 t . mIa d purple
S Jul .
2.13.2.1.1. Other species associated with freshwater or brack-
ish habitats include the common egret, snow-v egret, cattle egret,
belted kingfisher, marsh hawk, double-crested cormorant, common loon, ..
pied-billed grebe, great blue heron, Louisiana heron, little blue
heron, green heron, black and yellow-crowned night herons, American
bittern, least bittern, glossy ibis, white ibis, Virginia rail, sora
rail, king rail, clapper rail, long and short-billed wren, red-winged -
blackbird, boat-tailed grackle, connon snipe, the eastern brown peli-
can, and osprey.
2.13.2.1.2. Shorebirds and gulls found in the area at various p
times of the vear include the American oystercatcher, semipalmated
plover, Wilson's plover, willet, dunlin, short-billed dowitcher,
sandpipers, black-necked stilt, herring gull, laughing gull, ring-
billed gull, royal tern, and killdeer.
2.13.2.1.3. Upland species include the turkey vulture, black
vulture, sharp-shinned hawk, red-tailed hawk, red-shouldered hawk,
osprey, sparrow hawk, turkey, bobwhite, American woodcock, rock dove,
mourning dove, ground dove, yellow and black-billed cuckoo, screech
owl, great horned owl, short-eared owl, barn owl, barred owl, chuck-
will's-widow, whip-poor-will, common nighthawk, common flicker, pil-
eated woodpecker, red-bellied woodpecker, yellow-bellied woodpecker, 0
hairy woodpecker, downy woodpecker, eastern kingbird, tree swallow,
purple martin, blue jay, common and fish crow, tufted titmouse, red-
breasted nuthatch, white-breasted nuthatcl, brown creeper, house
wren, Carolina wren, mork jnbird, ctbird, brokwn thrasher, robin,
eastern bluebird, blue-,ra :her, 1og,,erhied shrike, sta riin ,.
solitary vireo, various .a rb l ,, common vel 1 o; t ro;it , L stern meadow
lark, cardinal, rufou:5-s idOd towhiee, riinv sC:irr s * (cio1innhickadee,
and slate-colord iunco. I •
2. 13.2.2. lamma Is. l tLhouthll t e]I i ried i ate i I Varles to ai rb or
area offers on1v limite.d ha!t- tat for most mamrial : . ,Yui. :,,o K-
tensive develo:ient, s itailuibitat is ovallab ho ii tilt r
. , 4
and uplands associated with the numerous tidal creeks and rivers
which enter the harbor. Mammals commonly associated with these
areas include the opossum, various shrews, eastern mole, various p_.. 0
bats, raccoon, long-tailed weasel, mink, river otter, striped
skunk, gray fox, bobcat, eastern gray and fox squirrels, southern
flying snuirrel, numerous mice and rats, eastern cottontail rab-
bit, marsh rabbit, white-tail deer, and feral Dig. The only i ]
marine mammals commonly observed in the harbor are the Atlantic
common dolphin and Atlantic bottle-nosed dolphin.
2.13.2.3. Reptiles and Anphibians. The most common
marine reptile in the area is the diamondback terrapin. Other
turtles that occur in the harbor and offshore waters include the
Atlantic loggerhead and the Atlantic green turtle.
2.13.2.3.1. Vithin the three river systems and in the harbor
itself, there are a great number and variety of reptiles and am-
phibians. Animals commonlv found in the freshwater aquatic habi-
tats are the alligator, common snapping turtle, spotted turtle,
eastern mud turtle, river cooter, chicken turtle, Florida and •
spiny softshell turtle, black swamp snake, banded water snake,
brown water snake, eastern cottonmouth, dwarf waterdog, lesser
and greater siren, leopard frog, green frog, bull frog and river
frog. S
2.13.2.3.2. In the drier upland habitats are found the
garter snake, eastern hognose snake, southern ring-necked snake,
4 black racer, eastern coachwhip, rough green snake, yellow rat snake, 0
scarlet snake, scarlet king snake, eastern king snake, southern
co )erhead, pigmy rattlesnake, canebrake rattlesnake, eastern
diamondback rattlesnake, southern toad, spring peener, green tree-
4 Frog, and cricket frog. 0 •
2.13.2.4. Rare and endangered species. There are 10
threatened species, 1 perirheral species and 3 status undetermined
0 p 1
b w -. ' w
species which occur or possibly occur in the Charleston Harbor S
area (Reference 23).
a. Threatened species. Threatened species can be defined as
those "whose prospects for survival and reproduction are in imme-
diate jeopardy. Their peril may result from one or more causes--
loss of habitat or change in hebitat, overexploitation, predation,
competition or disease."
Threatened species are:
Fish
Shortnose sturgeon Acipenser brevirostrum
Reptiles and amphibians
American alligator Alligator mississipiensis
Green turtle Chelonia mydas
BirdsI
Eastern brown pelican Pelecanus occidentalis -
carolinensis
Southern bald eagle Haliaeetus 1. leucocephalus
Peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus
Bachman's warbler Vermivora bachmanii '
Kirtland's warbler Dendroica kirtlandii
Eskimo curlew Numemius borealis
The brown pelican is commonly observed in coastal areas of South
Carolina. The green turtle is a resident of the open sea and may
occassionally be observed when it comes onto coastal beaches at night
to lay eggs. The alligator is commonly observed in freshwater lakes
and rivers. The bald eagle is a permanent resident of the state and
is usually found around lakes, rivers and coastal bays. The bald eagle
has not been sighted in the immediate harbor area in recent years. The %
peregrine falcon, Kirtland's warbler, and Eskimo curlew are transient p.]
species. According to the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Bachman'swarbler, one of the rarest of our small birds, has been observed in 0
'on swamp.
52 9 0
w w W W W U W U S U S S S S S S
* 0
b. Peripheral species. A peripheral species--"is one whose
occurrence in the United States is at the edge of its natural
range and which is threatened with extinction within the United _
States although not in its range as a whole." The only peri-
pheral species known to occur in the project area is the roseate
spoonbill (Ajaia ajaja) which is a transient.
c. Status undetermined species. A status undetermined species-
"is one that has been suggested as possibly being rare or endangered,
but about which there is not enough information to determine its
status." The following species are in this category:
American osprey Pandion haliaetus carolinensis
Wood ibis Mycteris americana
Eastern pigeon hawk Falco c. columbarius
The osnrev is locally common and the other species have been seen
in the area.
2.13.3. Fish. The vast complex of salt and freshwater
marshes, sounds, tidal creeks, and rivers in the project area,
provides excellent habitat for a diverse array of marine and fresh-
water fish species.
2.13.3.1. Cooner River. The principal freshwater sport
fishing areas are located in the Cooper River and contiguous waters.
The Cooper River is characteristic of a large river because of the
large volume of water released from Pinopolis dam for power genera-
tion. Peak discharges frequently inundate about 7,300 acres of 0
marshes and abandoned rice fields. The inundation of these low-
lying areas provides habitat for small fishes and invertebrates
which contribute a significant amount to the overall productivity
of the Cooper 'liver. This high productivity is reflected somewhat
in the large number of fish species (73) collected from the river
during a recent studv.
* 0 53 0
* U U U S U S U U U U U 9 U U U
2.13.3.1.1. The Cooper River annually receives large runs
of anadromous fish with large numbers of striped bass, blueback
herring, and American and hickory shad ascending the river to spawn, i.. S
mainly in the West Branch between the "Tee" and Pinopolis Dam. Just
below the dam and adjacent to the tailrace canal, the South Carolina
Wildlife and Marine Resources Department operates a striped bass
hatchery. Fry produced at this hatchery come from eggs which are S
stripped from Cooper River striped bass captured in the tailrace
canal.
2.13.3.1.2. The transition from a marine to a freshwater 0
environment usually occurs in the general vicinity of the junction
of Goose Creek and the Cooper River. The best freshwater fishing
and the most heavily utilized areas are the East Branch of the
Cooper River and the tailrace canal. The Back River Reservoir is
also heavily fished, partly because of convenience of access. Good
fishing is also provided by the West Branch of the Cooper River be-
tween the "Tee" and the vicinity of Goose Creek.
2.13.3.1.3. Principal species appearing in the sport fish- 0
erman's catch on the freshwater portions of the Cooper River and
contiguous waters are striped bass, largemouth bass, bluegill, black
crappie, redbreast sunfish, redear sunfish, warmouth, spotted sunfish,
channel catfish, chain pickerel and bullheads. 9
2.13.3.2. Charleston Harbor and contiguous waters. Recent
studies on the value of Charleston Harbor to marine resources were
* conducted by the Marine Resources Center of the South Carolina Marine 0
Resources Department in cooperation with the U. S. Army Corps of
Engineers (Reference 12). The purpose of this study was to evaluate
the adult and juvenile fish fauna in the system and to incorporate
* these findings into an overall assessment program for the coastal 0
zone.
54
. . .. .
2.13.3.2.1. Research trawling for this study was con-
ductud during 1970-1971 on a monthly basis and has provided
pertLnent data on various faunal elements which definitely .
t,-tab I ihes the Charleston Harbor area as an important nursury
aIrea. .'.s night be expected, the trophic structure of the estu-
ary v Fries from season to season with biological activity reach-
in-, a ioc point in the winter as manv species become relatively 0
inactive or mirate to offshore waters. In the spring, there
is a rai-id r ise in ecosystem metabolism and productivity in-
crcases. at :ill levels.
2.13.3.2.2. Sampling stations occupied during this studv
.wcrc located in the Ashley River and Beresford Creek and near
Seiin,;cn and flog Island. A summary of the species captured
is the Chiarleston Harbor area and :Iorris Island area during
LilA stud: ;re presented in Tables 10 and 11, respectively. A
Lotal of 70 s-ucies of fish wert captured, many of which are
valuable in the makeup of commercial and sport fisheries in the
project area. As shown in the tables, some of the species
captured are ,ear-round residents and are found in all zones of
the iharbor while others are migrant forms that utilize the harbor
1s ,inurs rv area and then move into offshore waters. The great
dicvrsity of species found during this study. tends to document
the "act that the Charleston Harbor area is a valuable asset to
Lit ;i 5 marine resources.
2.1"3. .*.* . The barbor and adj1ont inshore and offshore
i i .- rt , in intense -,,w rt fisht r, . Principal species 0
,, :'Iit i:, i i- ier' . Lter, I:. surf, :uitr, ind small boat fishermen
Ii ii ,i t .d to red :i:i , lick drum, sheepshead,
t: F l ",ed ass, ',ui.<: ish, sp, otted seatrout,
:, i . .. 4 , ,, , ir, Pier ir , n, ano, toadfish, black
: <-:L:, e,, fteps_,. c tfish, sea c,::i 5iI, lad vfish, and Spanish
* 0 0 !]
*l S S
*O 0
2.13.3.2.4 In addition to the aforementioned inshore
fishing, there are many charter boats, head boats and large pri-vate boats which fish the offshore waters for king and Spanish
mackerel, bluefish, dolphin, white and blue marlin, sailfish, 0
wahoo, cobia, crevalle jack, barracuda, little tunny, skipjack
tuna, amberjack, black sea bass, groupers, red and vermillion
snapper, red porgy and triggerfish.
2.13.3.3. Ashley River. The Ashlev River contains the
common freshwater and marine forms found in other coastal streams
of this area, although studies reported on in 1964 (Reference 24)
eindicate that biological productivity in the river appears to be
lower than that of other coastal streams. This condition was attri-
buted to domestic and industrial pollution, which occasionally became
severe enough to cause fish kills. However, significant improvement
in water quality of the Ashley River has occurred since this report
was written as a result of improved waste treatment practices.
Although biological studies of the scope of those conducted in
1964 have not been conducted recently, local reports indicate that
fish kills no longer occur and fisherman use and success have been •
increasing as a result of improved water quality. The Ashley River
also serves as a nursery for blue crabs, brown and white shrimp,
and various marine finfish.
2.13.3.4. Wando River. The Wando River generally contains 0
the same fresh and saltwater fishes found in other coastal streams.
Most sport fishing is by small boat for spotted seatrout, red drum,
flounder, striped bass, and spot. Sports fishermen also take blue
crabs and castnetters take a few shrimp. 0
2.13.3.4.1. The river is classified in the SB category which
permits bathing, fishing, crabbing and other uses but prohibits the
taking of oysters and clams except for transplanting to other waters
from which they can ultimately be gathered. Recent information
indicates that sub-tidal seed oysters occupy about 390 acres in the
'.'ando River.
50-
I. - • - , - - - , • - . -. .v-:-': • , - , , . . ., .- . " L . - .' -' "--;- ,
Scattered concentrations of intertidal ovsters also occur in
the river. Commercial fishing is limited to a small blue crab
fishery.
2.13.3.4.2. The Wando River also serves as an important
nursery for many marine forms which later contribute to area
sport and commercial fisheries.
2.13.4. Commercial fisheries. Annual fishery landing
statistics compiled by the National Marine Fisheries Service in
cooperation with the South Carolina Wildlife and Marine Resources
Department show that commercial fishing in the Charleston area is
a multi-million dollar industry. Principal species landed include D
shrimp, oysters, blue crabs, clams, alewives, American eels,
flounder, whiting, black sea bass, and spot. Other species marketed
include bluefish, croaker, black drum, red drum, groupers, grunts,
king mackerel, menhaden, mullet, pompano, porgy, gray seatrout, I S
spotted seatrout, shad, sharks, sheepshead, red snapper, vermillion
snapper, Spanish mackerel, sturgeon, and squid. Landing data for
the period 1964 to 1973, which may include species captured in areas
other than Charleston, are presented in Table 12. b
2. 3.4.1. U"pstream of the harbor in the tailrace canal and
in Lake Moultrie, there is a commercial fishery for herring. During
the spring of 1973, a total of 363,600 pounds or 805,000 herring
were harvested from the Cooper River between March 5 and April 18.
This represents a decline in both fishing pressure and harvest when
compared to 1972. The herring catch on Lake Moultrie totaled
63, 3-4) pounds in 1973 (Reference 25).
2.l3.5. Tnvertebrates. Macroinvertebrates commonly
a-suciated with the saltmarsh environment in the project area include
i variety of crustaceans, mollusks, and polychaetous annelids. Ben-
tLUic fauna in tilL offshore disposal area was found by the South *(arolina i,.'ildlife and Marine Resources Department to be impoverished
i little diversity and very small numbers of individuals as
c' pi'ir Cd to i iushore areas.
" 7
00
2.13.5.1. Crustaceans found in the area include two
species which are commonly observed during periods of low tide,
the mud fiddler crab and sand fiddler crab. The mud fiddler -
crab lives primarily on the clayey or muddy intertidal flats
among tae roots of cord grass while the sand fiddler crab gener-
ally inhabits the sandier substrates in areas near the high tide
line. Other small crabs which are common in the marsh are the 0
mud crab, flat mud crab, and wharf crab. The mud rab is found
in areas containing heavy oyster growth or shell accumulation;
the flat mud crab occurs on the muddier substrates in the lower
portions of the marsh; and the wharf crab is found near the high
tide line where it actively crawls about on wharves and
stone jetties or rests in shallow burrows along the shores. Other
crustaceans commonlv found in and around the marsh at various
times of the year are blue crabs, hermit crabs, brown and white
shrimp, mantis shrimp, grass shrimp, isopods, amphipods, and
harnacles.
2.13.5.2. The American oyster is the most common pele- 0
cv~od mollusk found in the area's marshes and generally occurs
in clumps or large beds in the small tidal creeks. The collecting
of oysters for human consumption is prohibited in the harbor area
because of bacterial levels which exceed state standards. These 0
beds do, however, provide seed oysters and habitat for many species
of fishes and invertebrates. The Atlantic ribbed mussel and the
hard shell clam are also found in the area. The ribbed mussel is
4eerallv7 found in sandv mud or attached to oyster shells while 0
the hard shell clam is found on sandy or muddy bottoms, between
the tides and in shallow water.
-'3.5.3. Gastropod mollusks commonly observed in marshes 0
irotind the ha;rhor include the common marsh reriwinkle, eastern mud
niil, -in( the 1 t marsh snail. The periwinkle is generally found
, ,rIrls- in the hi her regions of the marsh near sandy substrates
6 S 0
58
* W W W W W W 0
0]
while the mud snail occurs in low areas where the substrate is
always wet and muddy. The salt marsh snail is usually found
near the high tide line under windrowed plant debris.
2.13.5.4. Polychaete worms also inhabit the salt marsh,
sometimes in large numbers, and are found on a wide variety of
substrates. 0
2.13.5.5. Although much of the salt marsh in the project
area provides suitable habitat for the numerous invertebrates
mentioned above, suitable habitat is somewhat limited in the
deeper portions of the estuary. Samples collected during
Sentember, 1965, bv the former FNPCA for the Charleston Harbor
polluLion study revealed that adverse conditions for benthic
organisms existed in many of the deeper reaches of the harbor.
As a result, population numbers were generally found to be low
with polychaete worms being the most common group of animals
collected. The lower reaches of the Ashley and Cooper Rivers
were found to be highly polluted and lacked bottom associated
or;,,anisms at mid-channel stations. Moderately polluted areas
were found in the main harbor from the mouths of the Ashley,
Cooper and Wando Rivers to near Ft. Sumter. The only benthic
organisms collected in these reaches were polychaete worms.
Seaward of Ft. Sumter, benthic environments were not found to
be nolluted to any great extent. Animals collected in this
reach included polvchaete worms, shrimp, and crabs.
S2.]3. 5.h. Economically, the most important invertebrates
-iound in the estuary are the brown and white shrimp and blue
As shown in Table 12, the 1973 commercial shrimp landings
iii tht Charleston area amounted to over 4 million pounds valued
•~it loon t 4.5 million dollars. Blue crab landings for this same
oor 0(d amounted to over 2 rill ion pounds valued at over 400,000
(1 1 nra .
59
" "' S 5 5 5 5 5 " ' " 5
KT"
2.13.5.7. Aside from direct economic values, all inverte-
brates in the estuary are available as food for other marine inverte-
brates and fishes at some stage in their life cycle. For example, two
studies conducted in Florida showed that invertebrates constituted
the principal source of food for more than 94 percent of the fishes
harvested in Florida's valuable sport and commercial fis'heries
(Reterences 34 and 35). A similar condition probably exists in the
Charleston Harbor area.
2.13.6. Zooplankton.
2.13.6.1. Available information on species composition and
abundance of plankton populations in the Charleston Harbor area is
rather limited. One of the first studies of the abundance of these
organisms in the harbor area was completed by Bears Bluff Laboratories,
Inc., in 1964 under a contract with the U. S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (Reference 24).
2.13.6.2. The Bears Bluff report gives the following account
pj of plankton populations in the Ashley, Cooper, Wando and Santee Rivers:
"Information from Plankton studies indicates that all of the river
systems studied are areas of abundance for many zooplankton forms,
including larvae and postlarvae of commercial species of fish and
60 shellfish. The Santee River system was found to have the greatest 0
recruitment of fish larvae nrid postlarvae, chiefly spot, croaker,
and menhaden, over the study neriod. Blue crab larvae were most
plentiful in the tando River. Penaeid shrimp postlarvae were not
plentiful in any of the rivers surveyed during 1963-1964, and this 0
was reflected in the very low commercial shrimp catch over this
period. Although the Ashley River was not found to be a region of
comparatively great abundance for the larval and postlarval forms
fl commercial species, this river nonetheless ranked high in the
abuIndance of copepods, mvsid shrimp, etc., indicating that it is an
area of high zoomlankton productivity. On the basis of total zoo-
plankton productivity it appears that of the four river systems
60
* - - S S S 0 0 0 0 0
IV
'I*1 t ti
t t)
:)r I 0;
ud.
r rt wer
rk:
r Lcnn r L11 I t
II
-.-- ~ ~ Q W W -. -
was taken in the summer (502,523/acre) and spring (189,131/acre).
The average in the fall sample was 122,164/acre. The average
standing crop for the three surveys combined was 271,273 organisms/
acre.
2.13.6.5. Of the 45 fish species collected (luring the three
survey periods, 10 species accounted for 95 percent of the total
catch and three of these species accounted for 75 nercent of that
total. Listed in decreasing order of abundance, the 10 most abun-
dant species were Atlantic croaker, Atlantic menhaden, mummichog,
bay anchovy; spot, freshwater oobv, striped mullet, silver perch,
tidewater s;ilversides, and southern flounder.
2.13.6.6. Invertebrates collected included grass shrimp,
whit, shrimn, and blue crabs. Numerically, the invertebrates were 0
most abundant a,:counting for 89 percent of the total collections.
(;rass shrimp :.adu up 95 Percent of the invertebrate catch.
2.13.6.7. Nean biomass was also dominated by invertebrates _
as they made up 63 percent of the 249 pound/acre average. Grass
shrimp accounted for 131 pounds/acre and blue crabs 19 pounds/acre.
The dominant fish species was the American eel at 16 pounds/acre,
followed by stri pd ruillet (13.1 pounds/acre), croaker (12.9 pounds/ p
acre, and menhaden (12.6 pounds/acre).
2.13.6.8. The authors of this study concluded that "the
tmlli, st ron4-Iv Umohas izud the importance of tidal streams asI S
nuLirer ; cr r .i ;1 5 nt'rcenLt o F all organisms collected were marine
clir'}ii I oe f tk-; ie , :id mianv of the predominant Forms were repre-
'n~teU almost tnt i reyv by larval, post-larval, and juvenile stages."
li at , o st It ed that: HLiri est onaio[y, the Cooper 1iver upstream
of (oir1 sto, . . is; a dynamic system s;iprortin , diverse pomula-
r it e rarine, and inadromou; ! is;Ihes ;and invertebrates.
. I ; I . : - [ ;ire e ither esteemed is ,inc f Ii ci t's;, cor'iercia IlI
Viloil I, ,cf ;r:v'r't;in a I i-ave' soon ri '
i Ii i 11 1r i iiL i Io r t I Se(
V W W V W W W
II.,n i ;,It. t 1(10I1 tr 1.-s 0Ii t It( I * ' k:011 I IN ier SySteM
r ens i -ahivmor a productivye thain tw-- ol~ a te corL RO'yal
toji ustosi n vn; terna su r VeC inl 190 A NIt hough -i .,rcatcr
d i varo i-, L vt o ne fs (f o 7 ) oc c ur r d In ti oart itavav. I t i da I
1- t1i, I 0 SI- i iM 'I 01ops 0i aciy tie r,. i1:- ~ ~ vc B I ar
I I I u~I~ r :, Sc I A~ :1 1 Vo a ri n I v
i t;< I I 1 1 i ama-vi 1 60 .7 P I I I1 1 r i rc vai, ~o -
tt I" Yli Pt talli <id a *rci-;; t heC o pOtr fi VLr t I da' I
Sr, )0 rtI 1 Ii i tiil - hiL mcioib)r ind I au r t c~ tI a t h)i o-
d1 i.7 a I. .r tt pil c . Dunr in . t ii LL I ctll
I ca :Iit r ot4 the Iirinc Rtciotrcc.s LDivisjain ot t he
F, 1 I 1:d 1: t L11 i rc k., *Jp~irtar n t n. i d v
'' 1) hl ()I iAi~rdc 11cceiv 01 o thLt; jras
I d it. -,id Mndt r a c-n t rac t ,. it t tiic S A . TP.
;i VS i, sir 1 SI o a estuirifle value,; studvN I -t ,,nc,
le IIs 4 i I Ah 1 1 Oar pub L i c re'va I n', ii t ha
aIi. Pert incot a.pects, () t il rp ofrf i r-
r 1i a- )[) r , ~ t I a~ Ia nu tt( a0Fdt 11) 1
lil 11 tI ls Iii t it l~ -~15i! i,, I it
I II > t T.. r a ~ I it r~ a a
it1.
Il ill
buildup ot deposited dredged materials. "[he benthic fauna (see
Table 19) were found to be iipoverished with relatively little
diversity and very small numbers of individuals, as compared to
inshore typically estuarine areas. However, the S.C.W.M.R.D. felt
that this was a normal community for this type of bottom and con-
cluded that the direct effect of dumping on the benthic fauna
appeared to be limited. Most mollusks probably could manipulate
to the surface after shallow burial.
2.13.7.4 The open shelf habitat from the 60-toot (10 fathom)
curve to 108 feet (18 fathoms) is characterized by a rough bottom
with coral, limestone and vast invertebrate communities. Beyond108 feet (18 fathoms), broken or live bottom areas are generally
more scattered and out to 150-180 feet (25-30 fathoms), the shelf
contour is relatively smooth and has a very gradual slope. The
shelf edge habitat off Charleston is characterized by a wide variety •
ot bottom types. fhe dominant feature of this area is the remains
ol an ancient reel which runs approximately parallel to the coast-
line it depths of 150-21-0 teet (25-35 fathoms). This is a rich ]irea lor fishing with tremendous growths of invertebrates, sponges •
and corals and will be avoided during disposal of dredged material.
2.13.7.5 Generally, the bottom area to the east and southeast of
the dumping site out to the continental shelf has live bottom areas
inter.persed at various localities. These are characterized by
outcrops of rock with attachments of sessile organisms, sponges, etc.
aind are populated by a variety oi fish species. No dredged materials
wiI I he placed in these areas.
2.13.8 Description of existing diked disposal areas. *2.13.8.1 Daniel Island. The Daniel Island disposal area
is located at the junction of the Cooper and Wando Rivers and is -currently tinder easement to the South Carolina State Ports Authority
until 1980 or until such time that it is filled to an elevation of
18 feet above mlw. A total of 686 acres of the 789 acres under
easement have been d iked. Previous studies indicate that once the
material is in the disposal area it will consolidate to about 50
percent of its shoal volume. Applying this factor to the current 0
rat, of filling, it is calculated that Daniel Island is being filled
)II Lt I I. .'t )L'r V('ar. At this rate, 18.0 feet MJw
I -It r ih. I ,i int int.e dredging in 1.977. It has been
F CC vol !WjdL,(l t i t t h e, I mcnt be amended to) permit filling to 22
I .Ct Mlw ii> I.xt l ,in? the liiI of this area through 1980 and
, , i . l)tu to the. additional drying time that would
h I j, Ii-l it IIt', d i kes co I(I be ra i sed , the District Engineer has
Iskk.d ttl. pl, .Let ;ponslor (the State of South Carolina) to initiate
stoy, to reicew Lih D.ini l I s land easement, extending the time and
di tt ri t -A ri't ion.t on height of fill, and begin negotiations
I Q- orn add it i, alr I d i sposa I area suitable f or Lower Charleston Harbor
I tI i i tSit i, t S, ejil re rn L s2.1 3.'. 1. 1 'Fh, a rea currently being utilized for deposition
,, *-1 i: riii>; id loc.ated on the southern end of the island.
!)hil' t i. In . < I ,rdg ing, the interior of the disposal area
I V v I". I: pitd se-diment and there is little vegetation.
j.. i i, . tL Uw irea .is limited to feeding herons,
t ni d i irs, 0dun in, willets, black-necked stilts,
' '.,'. ' 1 i, i ; othth r bird ;ptcits, and small mammals.
Sr'iris land. The Morris Island disposal areai S
. I t i , ,ut h oi the harboir west of the entrance channel.
S ; . s 'I- sudr - (d.A.ement to the South Carolina
t'. f .\uliti )it lor a period of 25 years from 21 December
I S cd ,2-1 i' Current lv being used for disposal covers
'h, iV*1 ; ,lovat ion is currently 7.0 feet miw.
.,. .. i l ed ,,Ivit ion of 2 3.0 feet and a compaction
.; .• .:,, lii,, '. ri s Islanl i -d (I poS I area wi I I hold about
... ..... s '. 1 1 oip),ictcd nii ril or 28,160,000 cubic
. .t,' i, n i i the JiisposaIl area is sparse and
I t T I i I t o that described lor Daniel Island.
.. i-!t K -ia 0.nd o t ie, island is composed of
.., , i i;,,l whitli ire, ut ili zed bv small
:';iiii~in , ilt-owl , and wading and passerine
. ,. pl.in:; olr diking this area, and using it
1P 1P.
~1 11111 ii i iui d I -. h~it:ic bv Thiwn Guick ont Lilt' WLi-st Imd Lile
c~~oou] I CV t '1 ( r c -1 fTw Cotyc R i verr paJt ~ otoss'
c V t i. ct0 it hO,- !I p7< 1> ."I UI'( of igi to I O 1c ru
.I-ciI: I. , < t I I f u cih I I I AL IL Ihc C 1ti
Ct. 1 I t w; 11 Lt MIt ct i I o o) t L 1. t L 1 1Ci~l VI I I- 0
DI' AV 1 1: l) oo I ( '- .. .'i tc t7ItItI I i i No tt ~ de t h oIIc t cIl
APPCt il It [.11) Jc I7 1c 1)t ci i) ii L U d it It)ze I ()rc dChorlcitt 0~)
I 1 1,) c ir, i rl 1 tot ce , ;I Ilocal io mtenance dredging.
.17~ t i 1OiiiIj- IL-; otrc ctmd wildl1ife c'ut iiiza-
(7 i 0 1 11,1 AU 11, itt in 1 k l' DoIlI ' i I lin d i ispos-IlI a rea . A
I. '7 '. ;)cr\i J t d mit-;I (1 litd liked ret oil the
trt .' I j !t ttc.tTi I I ftitt tecil tire Ot1C(' is densely vege-
i-t'tVI (t !IoI I t Cli , i 1 berry wax myrtle, cabbage
L L, ) it) -(7 cid plo K i I Oificus . 'Illi - rookery i s
I . 7 Alt i [I Snow ugi. 5ii9 ctr'7 Loui si ana heron,
-. 7. .t.'7'7 it niptt: lirctt, glossy ibis, white
it 1. I i L It ,t tt I; 1k I i )w- 1 witl U i-cut heuco.
-. ~~~~ .i-,1 t,.:tL 11 ti I. SI)OS IIitr(eicu~ area
I 11 : ti i~t r'.:t 50 I tu IS h'c -bLwcIi M i I v- I I
I . U~rI',' t.o p 1 Ii:~t1.~rsm. iitenance
it tc t
0II I l i
*~~ 1w t I I I I
-. %,. j,,- -. -
r 0
2. 13.8.-4. 1 In addition to the area used by the Corps of
Engineers, tile U. S. Navy uses a 703 acre area on the southern
portion of thu island to dispose of materials removed during their - 0
ma itelii , d red, ing of docks and slips. Current elevations in
this arca Irc bout 15 feet miw. Using the same assumptions as -
Above, this arc-zi has a capacity of 8,998,400 cubic yards of corn-
p,aL tcd nmater ial or 17,996,800 rubic yards ot shoal or in situ 0
m~ite r i a
2.1 3.8..2 The perimeter of the disposal area is classed
as Priority IV wetlands. Plant species found around the perimeter
inclkl smooth cord grass, big cord grass, black needle rush, •
ca t Lii :;edges, hulrushes, silverline, tamarisk, hackberrv,
(d i'u,. t illow trce, wax myrtle, rattlebox, Russian thistle, dog
fennlc , giiot ralgweed, goldenrod, loblolly pine and various clovers.
i-; i, t ii, (I i k- , v .o tit ye cover varies from none to dense. "l'lie ]
: i,,r II 0 . t the area is covered with recently deposited dredged -
mter i, I and is sparsely vegetated. The northern portion is vege-
tated witl gras.ses, Aster spp., Solidago spp., Russian thistle,
bachiar is, tamarisk, smooth cord grass, luncus spp., and cattail. S
Wildlife ut ilization of the disposal area is limited due to the
g,-encr. ab,,nce of suitable habitat. Wildlife species most likely
ti, ,ocur in tie area are marsh hawk, clapper rail, killdeer, herons
and egrets, s:indpipers, plovers, various dickeys, marsh rabbit, 0
2. 1 1. .' 3Yellow louse Creek. The Yellow House Creek
s i: ,-l -I is located on the east side of the Cooper River at
,,it ?Ii>.' k. -111h South Carolina State Ports Authority has a total
,,I 9 1' ,; nMcr perpetual easement from 10 September 1958. A
t it r, -, has been diked and the area has been filled to
hb,, : .0 , mtw. Wi l a maximum filled elevat ion of 23 feet and a
, 7 T: , i i,, i t 2:1 , this disposal area has a, A ipacity of about 0
., i,. .'ll d t o4,mpacted material or 28,656,000 cubic yards
i I ,: It .I i .
L]A* 6 S S
K r Lt tH .. t I'.rikis- bh\ tht. South
DI'oltuiI 11l' it. \"igctat ion in 1
' i 1. '11 d i i K I IJ l u f
I~~~ 0 t,1
-~~ ~ ~~~~~ I I n .~ K . 1 . * I:f r I kri .'11 1:1" rsh
q~5 11 tI i 11 - i i sFl -I I .
1) V
in 11i. IVf
IIt 01', 11c 11 I'll
jw! ii '\
II ..h
I:, ~ j on V lll I hiI d 0
irtd vj I u
i r t > i iiIi ~ lr j l i n i s t r i n
4 ,: i rt LT i& .
I~ Ln~r tons)
ri 'A t ~ t i
I IW - * *.-'J At tlh"
I if 'I I- tj . 1 1i.,L c ,-v rn r .
Ic . l Ln i c i ,i oil
I t ~1L .11( tIrt'iti( L
I~~ r, rcco p
I Cc*
Ip 0 a 0 9 0 p I 0 a0 I
4
Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) Economic Areas Nos. 28, 29, 30,
dU(1 31 . These economic areas have been delineated by the BEA and .
the Economic Research Service ( ERS) , Department of Agriculture,
who have made national and area economic projections to 2020 for
the Water Resources Conc ii . The projections dated September
1972 have been adopted as the current appraisal of the long-range
nat ionai Lrends for p1 ann ing purposes. These projects are de-
signated as "OBERS Proje< Lions". Thirty-five of the forty-six Southn.
a ro tna count ies are inc I ud ed i n BEA Economic Areas 28, 29, 30, and
, ',-hich i at Cos ideccd as rp rCe-, entat ive of the general cargo
Lribut~irv i-ca of the P'(rt of Chiarieston. Various combinations of
t:i s,, ir -'o[d be rt.pnc.:,nrat i\e of the various petroleum products
tribi itr" ir-c:1. Yhe discsu si , presented in the following para-
:rI ,, ' cd to 'iL.\ .\ oi 28, 2 ''9, 0 and 131.
....,i1 t ion. tihe 19/0 population of the State
i't t : !r'in a '. ,-) ,-)i, in increate of 8.7 percent over
it IIitiou atd I itcrease from the 12.5 percent increase
I ,i t ll tri il t W11-I t)OP decade. BEA Economic Areas 26, 29,
:i, rIi II, with 1 )70 p,pl it ions of 805,60, 610,800, 400,739, and
7 1 -, , r ; ',. t iv t', ,i tered changes over thieir 1960 populations
Si . 1i1)..9 -. , il '. p el t, respectively. Almost all of
4L p.,pl t ni] 1i cr, io thew immediate project area can be attri-
II, ,d t , , ro.,t h t t lit,, N'orth Charles ton - Hanahan, St . Andrews,
rTi, I L[rd, and \It. I' V.sant areas. About 47.6 percent of the
I - pt(.-1 t7d ) 2g ll ti ,, n m ;i I ed in urban areas as compared with only
*,.~ ' " i- ,t 0 'w. I''1 1 ,i tL t.ti n.
S1 .2. I , . It t,,til p, onal income of residents living in
t . -t it- ,I >0,1til I ir 'oa,1 irii-ow ted to about $7,550 million in 1970
cid if., fliw ['I , <,:- 1- it,, ,"r iLoit 74 percent of the national
*.-r . I r , pr i <ut i'rk, e It about (10 p cent in real per
t )i t I i s 'v r ', -' ' r,'d with about 15 percont for the
ti I ,''' I I ' i) t:-l . * e, cii t, incoac c-; ift' 2-i, 214, R),
* U U U I UI U U UI UI U w ,w w 0
A1 iL in 11W t9 L It'd I ,i36,~. wit 8 .11 percentL0o t tle a I),) r lor Lt
(iieliid I ,Vcd A .)'OIit 14o ,dt000 persons or :iboiit 2 3.8 per-cent:W wre L'LIp I eye'd
iki t~ni ~'ir j lVi L it k- Fe h() or about f- . ' percent were emplIoyed C
i iCriln t ire, t'+8,(1 or iboit 4. pc r c ,I src employve d i n
"oycra:meltl 12 -1i o r 13. pemrcentL we -re emplIoyed c in hol s~ and
r tiiI t Ml rit , L' 17rrnimoelr wer eiher Oe -miydtr in con-
ric WL CMon;t F C t i (n, trIllsp4rLt i t i, C Ormmn i c -tolitn, t a tj lie f inance,
in1 -o Iac , H i'st , nnpi i di imi I% wo rkers , or dome,,t ics.
I.. . I dtistr iii de2VL Iopmenlt. I hle t ypes- 0 1i illdnSt r,
tii Ii St C 0) 1oo ;LlLi UI-are 1 a I a re manyv anld va r L&I kl . I ndnhs try
-<indIed ctI % 1' in rcenc tt vei rs . \lanu f ac tu r inig ic cOlin ted to0 r
I.hk~liit j) r", .1) t 1 p 'In o vmcn, t i n thIie s tate inI 19 71) i n d -onsI , t re jelt l 1
I I111 LII r ih)ilnit Ci ye. pcer it . Tlie majio r ind t Is t ries r e t ex t iIes,
1i id I I eIIid p) r ()dit Ls 1 n ionIi-u l2ec t r i ca ma In ic h ineC rv food and
Iiriprodiits , e 144 rical equipment and suppi its, stonek, clay,
Ind pipe1)r mid il I etd prodlucts,. As anl indicat ion of tire indus -
r i ii I1'VC1(ts I' I Ltn inl LiW stile, te 11',vaIle added by manif acture'' has
iHi ti c ii' (or of2. inl C011st mit dm1 tars; durn-n the pe.riod
Ii I 1f VI (Ii I rk ad - ex pec(:t ed t o c on t inue .
* . '0..\ r i ii! nre I0. A_ ri i Lur P1 iY5 I t IIr )I v,; t i wt ort lnt.0
41),I 11 kii ~ ~ 'ii'' I Ic Vie I n' kt c rop p) rod tic t i on i n
1: v,. 4t r d! 1 Ii'i i4\eer*the numhe r 01 firms ha ccreised
4' ,it,)ii) ii 'li Iii 1~ ii)' 70 m l d the Iind in itiarms hs do-
r'I, t 'vI 11 ill, .1(( in 1) 0 ( t o S , I () ,ih( a 0 c res,- ill 19 7(0
* . rt Iii 1 'r t hi e iit in) the niimher 44 I a rmsi-- and totalI
Ii I I i' ~ s ti~ iv( itra4t, 5/4iz I ammi ti nrae rem 11
() ) I t o 11 1 ' ii 1 1 L
1 . 1 itin1T I1 i 1 i t it's, l t. II\ii , t' '-~n i tw rk
r t I Ioi(Lr4)i I 1 in 1 itI ' ' i Iind LIltr Il iLi' .
* 1 I I"1 Ii 4 i L 1 it Iii I I e t r p o t i I 11i I ii l 1, ' !It 11- i it t i t, 1 It i o n
Il i t ''I)4 i t i I -'t I ill Id I l~ l , Ii it 1 k t I I I L 11t 4"
-) t :r. Ii i t iw [iI I L t 11 11 -
I , .1 :: ilt: , I L. ,I :tI- t i ;t ,i iLiIIL,.I .rt LL Icmvt-,, jA fiK, U nc~ t Ol. ..- III' . 1 L llt-'4 I : I L t' i bll AI 11,d lr -
! Ui, ![0;<1 ' . I • t ! ' - 8I l~t.l- ' <lidii .V - L : Li t, ' I Ir c t L
it ~t i t i r,,([ upi m nv S o k I r I I 1 I1 SI F r t Stir L V 41 tI NAti 111;11i >1I I~L-ltflL
i r'i4i,. t o tt,irl0o r A-\ iothIr )ld I ort
I i ,,.1, V -t . . , i l.i t- t I t il rLi tIL ) ltL .. l te 1li
I 1 t [r on~ 1 tL I r~ b-L >0 LI 1W* Or 0 *Mi IA i tlE 9:' 1.. : i l :iL I tit' ; , i It it (Ii; L i till .1 i[ l t .rl t' or I c r i l0
* V.1, ilSI Iit~t~ii.L Vt LI Lt or: ]t- i. ~ -
, I h ilt t r tV tL I Xii Li 'L I 'll 4to 1>
iI , t t
r- . . ;1 ii , r, tI ' -4I Ii I T I I i I llt d
C. . . , , i It 1 i I I o t L I l L 0 g
.,' r 4i I i dl I l I 11 tl(h 1 1t-p ii iL(,tr I-t
ritI li d '1 4 tI t (1 1r,' 0 11L )L I II-
60:1- 1 L ~IIt-t I t - 1 1 al It ik Ceu r X I
r OLIIt'I Itt LL II 4111 L thhi I
i rci cI I*.r I
• +i ..- i
w a L ,d I I5
lop a v S U , th, ; StS U -
I III 11 )i
IMP S
|U . . . . . . J I
r r
.. - .. . .'I i 1 -;I ._ • ' ..
v,, r"
I r I I I
rI ) I I t 1 'e
SI i f
Fi II v; tt
.. to , :, r , 1 -,. -
-,. E I it I r t
oI- 1 t! r- oi 1[ 1 ftt t
i[., "lt I:I II . I II . vi~ i" 1 t I l\
! '! .ti , x
ii I .it " '. ' { t
.l-t<...* 0
*. ' I ' it
,l!~ -
0; 00t )1 )
0,~ sI~ C OTV 1) '1 'I C, LOI~ td
v, that~.
-0 ido 'nd e
-. ). elat ionsh ip of the Proposed Action to Land t'se Plans.
'ih Bcrkt 1 cY-Chiar leston-Dorchester Pegional Planning Counc iI nrepartd
.1 pr,, ir inar, !evelopmen' plan for the three-county area to set forth
Sa]:r ) ]Ic ics relating to desirable future development. In its
rosqt erom, it is too non-specific to nermit a determination of its
rciticmshin to the Charleston Harbor Navigation Project. There aric
no other 1Iand-use plans covering any area that would he affected h-
I In'pi r~ s~ nr ic t
0 1
• W • • • • • • • • • •0
4.o. I'l( Ur iiha I c I t-s o f the Proposed Ac t ion on
Tli,:- luiv i runictr t.
4.01 . ;"~~ osde os r ior to the comoiet ion
o1 Lhu Ltc-ope r in lo, iChirl estori Harbor was; con-
s ide-ud one of thco. 11iavst iiat nrcfl itiors on time, Atlantic (coast
withi de pths in iaiiv cirec-is -~iIjg10 feet. After complet ion
C) thle (I ive V e e I-! , 7 LW mite~ of shoaling rapidly increased
and ilt bint rmulItin cii1 rarts of the harbor. As a
result, cnnnicmIm ielmc drclg in;n requirements increased from
1 . ss t hcin )00,0() rulb i r cires Ili to approximately 10,000,000
rub~( va rd s . olcis ii ii s sjuiitiug problem, the Charles ton
liiriher es tucir' iss 4e n sbjeco, d for many years to water qu-ility
ril~l Cin tlcndcll i ed re:iu f fect s similar to those expected
to rkesu;1lI t 70re thCpooedpoc
!~ .1)1. 1'I'll" rm icr Cic sof this dredging relate to
effects on 'cite crpnl it% in omc n the ecosvstems withiin the harbor
aind d i S posci I ci reais . 1Yicmtt Cr gum i Lv is affe-cted mainly by local ized
shot-trni :rccusinl tin iii tv cand sedimentation of adjacent
wa t or ircis 1) rcins LIO f LIt, bocLt tomL disturbance by the dredge cutter-
Sadinch t he- suspended, indi dis solved mcit er!.al in the effluent from
tu se a areasL. Fhe- effects oi l dispnal ireas include the
uo tIherilna oi 4 an:ll 'ad cmmi .ommun itl ic. iid time prevention of any
snuhst iitiiir:rv or col'n izcit ion as, lon, is the area continues
tio I', tsU i iai~'c l cr
OI i I .An vilu.mit ion of avi icible data
iitor:.d inl < i 2: _ J uf i; FliU flidi, ttc thicit time deepening
1 iI. 1i I i r i pr p- it crurite cln\ long-tern
,I f.. ! .m iv vci- ~ p )t r itt riicitml effects on the w i
- . . i rnircr r i t 1, o i nv u; iirciul it, dredging
ii~ Ii 11i vn ic \'i ait v of thec dredge will
increase as a result of the mechanical action of the dredge cutter-
head. Observations of maintenance dredging in the harbor indicate
there will be a temporary increase in turbidity in tile area of dredg-
ing and, although visible at the surface only in the immediate vicinity
of the cutterhead. the subsurface plume may e:itcnd several hundred feet
ci ther ups;tream or dowinstream n , determiiined by tidal c arrents. Some il--
c ron. s il ilrbi tditi, can also 1c expected adjaWcet to the upl and disp)O ;5a
alri-a on )-mid I sland and 'lorri:; IJ;land, although construction of
dcikus and weoIrs sl: iuld greatly reduce the sediment content of the ef-
f] It . TIC, v t r turbi i tv in t ,-u off AhIOFC di s)osal area wil a] o
i I,* I-,:, 'Jlt- t ,'-to rcrv anl loeea] jzcd cffects, on resieJnt hiotia of
' ,litl - [m t i V ;11-" C (1101 L- ;. (Itrl('t ' to hC' Of ml' lli{I nC' to
f ttpio l t v i t v
LI t t o i t -
lnc! t;. .1). S cZ i C FI-' C V ,tO Id I, IAor , n(t c t ] ( in t e i m .(1.i it •
V'i ii it. tf t I I C -ti1n t , ic , .' 11 m!cc I 0 St ( C X' Ia Ii rIit'iIC] j, a t LP L.
I 'on! ti - ur . i TI hil, d i. L : F iuc' i I tI 1 C ' ' S 2( 11 t (; '.'1 1 110 t h l'Ve
a iy s ,', f i ca t aI fect oII the. I Ii,-t rr", p1od It i vi tv of t, I: hal e(r
c-ic 5;v:.; t i o ' It-c:Iit o ,f tIn- I ow n1 o I ra 1 productL v i t " of v ti t 1 -1 f ,' s - 0
iciI L
4.03. Biological Impacts. The major concern associated with
* drtd,.in,, in Char] eston Harbor relates to concern over the effect •
of the re-.oval of bottom materials and the ir subsoquent disciargu
into open water or upland disposal areas on the existing ecosystem
or man's use thercof. A discussion of the probable project effects -
• on existing flora and fauna is presented in the following paragraphs. •
4.03.1 Upland disposal areas. The Charleston Harbor estuary
conta ins thiisands of acres of productive salt marshes, none of which
* • would be affected by the proposed project since dredged materials would
73
... ....... S .. S U_. _ S S U S SS
*be disposed of on upland sites or In approved offshore areas. As
- discussed previously, the project sponsor has indicatad that it would
be desirable from his position to locate these upland disposal areas on
* and northward of Daniel. Island. There are two types of upland areas
* potentially available for disposal on Daniel Island, woodlands and
agricultural lands. The impacts of utilizing eachi of these types
is disciussed below.
4.03.1.1 Woodlands. Woodlands now appear to be one of the two
most liklely are-as to he Sel eCt(Ld for disposal of dredged material-
*from the harbor doepenin;, project and maintena-nce dredging when the
(currentl1y used di.spo!7:i 1 areas. are uised to capacfty. tIsoodlands are
ona of thr apr n'rninn types in the Char]leston Halrbor area,
and tlhn' ratji osal e for pre';ervaltion oif individlual tracts of mfarsh
d(0:; 1,A apply to0thc~ wood]anods,. Vood] antl-. are also less expenisive
4 I an uban1 x a rensandi would 1(1 the f ore, be oresui1tabl1e from tie
403. 1.1 . 1 Prior t o ia of anly wooded tract- of lald , tihe ownecr
....................................... Ti. oiy ('ederse- stand
wo~uld he rnedto percii t a none eveni distribution throtighoilL the'
(I p'S Iarea ol the hydraul ical I y dredgedc, cat~enial . Any trees not
rermovcd ond al 1 under'4 cry p tswould be killed when their roots
become( covered to at ;ufficient depth. Vegetation regrow'th would
I probab 1 y coni st: of pok)',e berry and other herbs and shrubs such as 0
silver] ine aud wax myrtle, and] trees of most of the same species
growing pr-ior to dredging.
4.03.1.1.2 Practically all significant animal life except for
Isome son]]I birds would be displaced during and shortly after the
use of a wooded disposal area. Raccoons, opossum, and some small
rodents might cont-inue to forage without interruption in the dis-
posal area. As vegetative regrowth begins, foraging by the other
species that were displaced during the preparation and clearing 1 0
and subsequent use of the area will increase. Plant and animal life
will fluctuate from a low during and shortly after deposition of
73a
t ii, L0 !
i 1) c
V ~ .. , -i Ii rom hi irfiylir (itiLepenriig pro-
-t at I I u g '.1~ i n t
";I ~ ~ I1)..Iil'I i
f ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . 1PId II lc Ic1 it Ic
1~~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 1SVItc l mlI II
lo r Ii s ii, . i I ii
t I r c
he 0t I ~l Vc ct~t iVt-r r w LI ,: 11
ii I II
IM t I- 0 l 1 .: i~ ttIUT
t I- I F, I A- V L', t' t :I VC re-
4. 03. 2. li irds,. Birds will rnot be adversely affected
to an, ex tent bv Lit-, Proposed pro jecCt . Species which utilize
the proposed. upl1and d isposAI a reas will p robab I ' be temporarily
frightened axyhe L'onn.t rue tionl no me-, and Will temporarily, Stress
repopul at ions in Other areas anite icripete for available food
*and roostlnia spaCe. )i thu p)ositive s ide, manyv spec ies have been
* observed congre,,at i n around acti[ye disposal areas to feed on
o or an is s i n LiteI dd M; i t or at II.
4 .13. 3 . Mamma~ I s . Althbough miany spec i cs of mammal. s
'cc ur inl the Ieer 1 x*' it- itv (,I- the proposed rro ect , the only,
01nC kb i ~h inomn inl t lite harbror proper is thea bot tlenose dolphin
ird i t ,i I I riot he , r ,il af-i(ct(d bY the u rolect. Some small
mama n ayhedi n;pjic:,-d inl t lie proposed u'dand disposal area on
])lic ittI s ao. tiw ne IoPrr is Islandi diisnosal area is currently
h ce i n', i.ned( i t idud I i an' ii -a mmai I i;wo ud b e d is pla c e d.
!4 4.1 1. . i I len. ep t i es in ite mm Itpoec t area , excep)t
lour t Ii (I iamirl:ie~k Lteiri in , aire ma in) 1- oif) sn ore formis which
01 e, .-is j ona I% %.ti de r ilito 0 I iii~r Ci ir I enton Hlarbor or land forms
dAich nira v 'Irk. :nt I.nne (i;itcd withl the harbor proper. The
d aini-wihil 1 tturraipn iii In finil in the vie, initv of coastal marshes,
t idal fini , er ill 'eirmat lia l tered Unpolluted body Of Salt
Or-c tr'.n~iiu~vAo crustaceans, mollusks,
* nkw ln to, it coiii re~i ertilies, ti, terrapin will not
i, it tcd !)% ii uc u > . ul t.
H 4 .1I.i it liii't I I. InT 19/ t h lle V2 T. Bam.uch (;oa-taIl
!11>ii it 'lit, _ iitlr eliii rat to tilt. Corns of Engineers,
Lt uld i (,( ti w ~ t t t i I- Ib i l- )I) Hn h l,r si Idg onl pJotosvntIhes is,
T T
r.-. rw'II:~f o If ', 1u i ri I iv'. L 1, an kt oi l-om7un~ it - un
If'.L or- iii i-1 i I ~ rII (f -nc ~ 27. li!e st u11. z :Is U v-
I~~~ 'It:>-('ti- h i~t' lUecdmtral1
* . . ]I; t~a->. i~t1Lil I I oriitor' :nIII(!
1 e11 I (Ii i-Ll- the INtmI 1' l kL 11 Stlidj S -es
ii *i - her, i Lorv x i i- r j1iieit was des i coeud
lo ;t ' t [, ' : ,I slud,,e on Jpririar- lrodu(,-
a ,I i 1I lrlI(L o~n Hairhor mud shoc-ed t hat
r,,-.I i' 1- rod tic t i on det.creas ed xw'i i C 1 s ugi-
il Lu d atI-I 1 i::Iited b-,.' .I i Lilt ini-
1 'i> -ni~is ilt o1 ' crimL- :-11t! '2IS J des Ii to-- iii-~~~~~~~ 'hd' Ii Il -~~il- uteach nut ofl resuspe,,nded
i-i ill gI1 1Iai ' II T ~l~t rol-ti. 'File cm-wiuts, sho%,ed that
WI' :J r- tI OWiced th tirolti o F (CharlIes ton HArbor )Iivto-
Ir( II'~
fALekll ind.
2..~~~~~ ~~~ o. r. i r r,>'--n e,'hax rdcinvi
* - > .. , r -~~~~~~ m tIW.I!i K 'c c Ic a -: (
I f ( i 1:1 I -j I / ) I 1 -:1
.21~~~~ p-ra-r- ' rd.c Ircse
no I
I~~~~~~ rLn ttt u 1rd~
I> v.
d rc(v i it, ()erit- ion. As a resul t, he(- piroposed dredging is not
................t ed to !I, Iv( 0fIlv -0ii caant long-term ef fect on plan kton
'o T)iti i t 0 .
4. 0 L* chvrtebrLote. Ili most dredging cr0 jects, one
ot tin H-os:t s1c ' - It short-term jrv.acts, is the destruction of
Ien tS h it oct cblrat c 7 t huT'oit h of the d retige cut terhead. TIs i i
'ro fec L iris bt-e-n I'e1 docuniiited inl Planv stud ies and fileld
ii i ,Ii lris coniuttti :iloni,, both thle Atlantic and Gulf coasts
relice; ) 0) ii 30() aiit1 cai bfe exo~ec ted to occur to some
4 : w it kni r i i.' I ht. rekcenf no7 of (hirl es ton 11arbor. S
l~I i tAs I isseLd ini Sec tion 2 of thils EIS, the
,i-Lt it c~iiit;it ion,; of henthic invertebrates in the Charleston
1 i), r - rr'ocr lr inl the s-;hi Ilower iorL ions in and around thle
It:ir>it. ot- ini t kde!oer-elIaiiei' ized areas. In addition,
-<i~t'ii ofi the- iiirbor colita in toxic substances khich,
i-or t(, to Li Not iniil rie lieries Service; ''essentially
4 >1~c i:iie ill htinthicinirm from the harbor bottom."' Since
0ilvtit1ker''c ions oI thle estuary k-ll be affected t)-, thle
u t ,LiW WIi onlintlhic inivertebraites w-.ill be in-
V iJiJ*1iih i Cr:i 01 ,I in i niib 1 itL ing thle offshore d is-
IiI 4it~ ill ;ioil bu sohr ed IisiTeJl r ial1s d redned f rom
Hi1. ":1 I lli 11i Ii,iii i :ir- ' i- ) e* Iii Ii li1 e -i short-term
I F i I ej t I-ow Ii e tirL' L'( re c r u itmienTt f rom
o J1
ti rr or oiiw ro r:s t - I r ive1, uirra's ofc
.1~~~~~~~~~ I. '. C. I: I i .. i 0 wi i Fr s *:l h m~I 1 1n0t be
* Avai 1ijhlc (I;ILi i iid ic~i L h t !_ti~stlppillat iols,
I I po I ti nr5 i t ); [ ) t 1 I ic 1 ).I k
i , ie-;'t-o;~ l's .dvsr, cc~~td c ': Irv jm oncrat ions.
r t P7 t1C Li C I'Vnj (2 s c irin ' k II l ) illh is s 4t tid' u f' ti t Lt I ii.
f it Ss ;I! I W~t k r 'I' in i~cortli l Fiutitii i Ild 1 cit ion oFF isu
1)" in i 1 t u In n I~ rdr,'c i 111.' 01s(r~lL 1ii5 In om st It icad, dredg ilg
'til '' " .:i' con", hired .u h- I'ci Cu LC (2.ui 0pce of
A dred ,,tt :iorks -i a> s] A i> om ; hane ,'11112 bhenltiC 11 a i TIaIS
it 1. 'i 11 lli)rilsiI I' he tiiriii in ii t l'Sed it' ti'it Ire dIis;lOdged
S ',, ,k');,it.' ; IU 1h c Lu 'rk'diL ion. ]'h is- suddeti avaiHa lIi ty
t !11 i I ( It k-ii i'> L.- i ; i ij t ian normal conient rat: ions
- i, it r t r, 1 11 1 L' i ni t. s t ranse cc i not2 I ain dItI t LI. . II it i I i L ilO
* I ll wi > IiI (I >tIi'(:tr tha1 t fish -;tire relatively
11- t hI I- Li, 1' 11 OT7 k nn '0ncern in Lit 14 ast
Fl, Iits o 1 tsrkil 1i t Ur i t ie and
% r,' I ;0!'' t 1'i ~ ' tuFLsIr i di t V Iu" Lie , Lte2
Ii L, 11 k on 1i ) 1r c k' I I,, oo i jn on tL t iN Ci o f
t1Kit 'r'' .( T Lii ' 1 o c 't Ir rietts aInd o the cr 'ut Lo r-s.
0 ti't I u t ilt' !!l t i- >i iwtiildd I art i c I (- ol I- i I hes w ll
e J, 1,1 t ol l il, 1 kI It 1 I t oi, ( ' l th ii s L 10 11 .
I t I' I i, t pii r cu i so , p esi
"CM I_ I ''t
o iot'i".IiI
*~~~~i~ ,"ooti i th -'i
it~~~ h ' Si i Ii L ed
00
to anyI i ra1MMn[ta I Imad ( if i cat ion. No indication.- of mortal itv attni-
lIiit iIAc toa thlie d rcda i n :10(1 di spaosal 0oration with resnect to
-,I isli - is nd ki arvac in thbe projeact Iearea were oh tained, a ithbough
lDova I (in it theam rail rt ) found 1larval and juvenile s tacoes of
ire.slwatar, astuai~r job, aind marine spaiwners in that area from Anril
Liraal AL i . Ii.. thoija )t that thlis was the most critic-al 7per iod
for tho.-s( deva cla'r-:cntalstca i.e., whien they oul emot viii-
ne2raict, to ;rcJ.jn i 5:sin disposal . Al so, since hie found that. post-
I larval In voiin5_ f- I alt-,s wee rese n t in deeper areas from Novemberlirotisli :iia-,, he ix' i ed that chiannel alterations shioul d be
l1vidci dilr In i Lhai peo d.
* hi ./ . ',. Sb rk ain( C;ronin (Re(Scfere nce 32) found t hai tindcar
ax)1( ii t e ii 0 it ioS, i Sub ected to extremel- h'~'i c oncen tra-
l on at suIii s: id; jiive died from suffocat ton rue tocapin
of tlia i I s and( op ru Iai ar caiv i t ies . llowever, uinder normal ci1 ream-
staneas I di ivi (d tuirb)idl wa iiican have the ab)ilityv to clIear pl
lal !Isbrnc! w aiuuliat-ed s lit upon entering, undi sturbed water.
la:'v~i-s alintad out ry asvnot all spelcies aire ecualiv sus-t m i , t a to a tracadci :-iin; d d iF Fereiit -sils-pcnsoi ds va rv iii tielr
1 1 t
4 4. i. . I a aa~ia, iiriilc, it hias b)een Fouind tiiat F isit can 0
ti era at i '11 ta ]1rb id! i t aK extalt she t: hay aire arcompani oil byv low
I, i: I vs ai d 0s: en, i i (,,, al bal Is o )r o thecr ubsLt).;ta n ces
i - i at~ !' ,rL t It roe-, i ,L ion, in njtre t~u II Is or prevcnt t hair
ar i Ko : t I aI I, t innl-b St i cklwv I nund timev a tira hII v 5 1(1I
r-- --.*' r e - i i , t , :it sr c, an i a 1) 1i t- o I'
* I li-~- a c! I'4 tlit lirtpistd pr-t
In i 1)"Ii - r I I 1 w II 1 eu;' * Parrlntip
AD-Al149 547 CHARLESTON HARBOR DEEPENING PROJECT CHARLESTON HARBOR 2/3AND SHIPYARD RIVER SOUTH CRROLINR(U) CORPS OF ENGINEERSCHARLESTON SC CHARLESTON DISTRICT APR 76
UNCLASSIFIED F/6 13/2 NLmo||o||o||ons
smomhhmhhhhlosom|h|hhE|hhEE
11111- 11111-L5~
MICROCOPY RESOLUTION liS CHART
I
° II
. D .
of these species in the channel area at any given time varies *---
so that it is not practical to attempt a precise determination
of impact on these species. Based on (1) research which has
been accomplished in other areas and (2) available information
on the effects of current dredging practices in the harbor, it -
is felt that any impacts resulting from the proposed deepening
will be of a short-term, localized nature and will not signi-
ficantly affect the fish stocks in the Charleston estuarine
svs t em. 0
4.03.7.7 Larval fish. The National Marine Fisheries Ser-
vice, under contract to the U. S. Army, Corps of Engineers, studied
the effects of dredged harbor sediments on larval estuarine fish I 0
cormmon to Charleston Harbor as part of the estuarine values study
(Reference 33). Their final report was submitted to the Corps
in April, 1973 and is summarized in the following paragraphs.
.- 0
4.03.7.7.1 For this study, the NNFS exposed the larvae of
five species of estuarine fish (Atlantic menhaden, pinfish, flounder,
spot, and Atlantic croaker) to seawater-sediment extracts for periods
of up to 14 days. Sediments for the study were collected by the I
Corps of Engineers at pertinent stations in the harbor. In the
.NFS laboratory, the sediments were added to filtered seawater,
shaken for two hours, and allowed to settle. The supernatant was
then diluted for testing at seven concentrations ranging from 0 to P •
100- ." -
4.03.7.7.2 The general conclusions reached by NMUFS are as
follows: "Despite the shortcomings imposed by limited time and I 0
money, certain general conclusions can be drawn from this research.
Though we have not determined the toxicant (or toxicants) 'nresent
in the (xtract, it is obvious that the materials are soluble in
seawater and that the leaching of these unknown compounds into S
the water column may be ,etr -- ental to larval fish populations under
80
- S . -.,
• .-, • ..."
. .
ctr t-i in iccd it ions.hi was dcic ostrated in the bioassayv test-
Thee i r i iof laruval t h a quiLte low or zero at certain hi1gh
CO n1Cen 11LI-at ion O cIS 0 ec C Li en1 t CeXtra-1C t. Indicat ions ire that survival
la Ii vaIit is ii wii bek different fer different species. We also
0 oun I ILrII-t I It i d it'l c rece in Lox ici ty of the sedimentLs depending
on where the si:ICinie I rim in Ciharle ston harbor. Of the samples
%w.1 tested, these 1 rn0!7, In Sh ipyard River, and Station
we re thle Mo0st ICIutke11 toxIc.
lin add I t ionI to tL10ie UL C~ 1- rspOnIse (mortal itv) our resul ts also
I ~~~nd icite t hit u t ii chaKn isis are acting to cause phvs io-
l0o_ ical cihallnC inl t1Ie I anal Fishi. This change is observed as a
reduc tLe Lu t h,. _ coL h i-at: ofi the 1larval1 fish at certain con-
CeUntcit ions.' O i L ne icu Xtrac1t. This lack of growth would
* s~_-u-n'Ust inl over. i l-c; n. 01' the fish which in turn could affect
tit'e F ishies' ein1CL- lor ,,urv ival.
Ou r b1 iv i or ii tce it d id not prov ide enough data to d raw any in-
Q 11 Ins ifs ;c' Iue , hiowever, t it our test of behavioral responses
t o sed imeniLt :,,:t rcic t iniIc at ed t Iii t menhaden and flounder mav be
cift C ed hc(iiiv ioraLiv (wh;ichi could lead to more -ibstant ial eco-
104icil ffcts and these organism,; should be tested further using
this criteria.'"
4.u.7.7.3 fT above s Lud%- presents evidence that larval
i i rtii 0 Ii-;i -onces may be0 adversely affected by thle
*~ir cto ~: i ;i il thcit so(,me mortal it\' will no doubt occur.
r, tI4r. o' daita are not directly applicable to field
i~itni nc '''s cannot be quant itatively evaluated. Some
I i'1 ci I L r ovced e itLhIe r as a r es ulIt o f t thIe mechan icalI
* ~ ~ ~ 1 jt ion':V rL 2 en expose;(d to turbid water, or (3)
it't( in.t-n-x i c.. ii -11sLstnces in stediments. However, ts statedl
nrk.' io' ' I.in cc I> ii Kb tumn'ionrr and wil IbIe~ I imi ted to thie
1:: i~ i 1 >i~ II VV [it I reilneu or i osiI cirtuis- and1 wi I11 not
i 0ii F Iccit I' Iife; L I i.'i, 4oekn - in thle Iianleston Harbor estuarine
* w w w w w w
- -- - o
" 4.03.7.8. Commercial Fisheries. As discussed in Section 2.
the principal species marketed in Ch,,ileston are shrimp, blue crabs,
oysters, clams, alewives, American eels, flounder, whiting, black
sea bass, and spot. A majority of these species are captured in
offshore fisheries which will not be affected by the proposed
project. Oysters and clams are found in shallower areas of the Aharbor and will not be affected by the project. The clams and
oysters marketed in Charleston come from other areas along the coast. -"-
Shrimp and blue crabs are found throughout the estuary and there is
a definite possibility that some will be killed if they come in
contact with the dredge cutterhead. Although numbers destroyed
could be quite large, the impact will be temporary and will not
significantly affect recruitment to the offshore fishery.
4.03.7.8.1. Many of the commercial fish species spend a •
portion of their life cVcle in the estuary and could be adversely
affected by turbidities or could be picked up by the cutterhead.
As discussed in Section 4.03.7, the impact on fish is expected to
be temporary and insignificant.
4.03.8 Ocean disposal site. The proposed plan includes
the use of an existing offshore dumping area for disposal of
sediment removed from the entrance channel. Since Fiscal vear 1965, 0
from 367,460 to 1,410,000 cubic yards of material have been dumped
in this offshore area with little evidence that any buildup is occur-
ri n:1 . TFo evaluate the impacts of this type of disposal, the Corps,
is part of the estuarine valies study, contracted with the S. C.
W il dl i fe and Mar ine Resources I)epartment to study the biological
cond ition of the present off.slhore disposail rea and to determine
,prohabIc effects of continued us ,. :1 t'Igneral, they found that:
"Ibis 1Irge area has 1)t', 'ittii i for at I'ast six ears as a disposal
';itt, with no evid'ence of silt hiiidu: or adverse ecological effects."
V&1v also stated that: 'iihOwvt Cr, the possihility exists that the
h i I dop of mod (Itpos its on tIL' Ihot t T Iou ILd result in the en-
halcement ot .ld CL'rnt Ar('ils IV ri.,t ill' iahitat for valuable
speti ls such as I'i t shiin1 . li in turn, would generate
- - W V n 4U0 0 0 0 0 0
' o. . *- *
- - ~w ~ V'r . -.- * - *~--..--,. - - .-
-.,, potential for increased or, at least, more productive commercial 0
fisheries. It is f.lt that the existing hopper dredge disposal
area is the best suited location available within reasonable dis-
tance of Charleston Harbor for the deposition of non-toxic materials.
Disposal in this area has resulted in no significant conflicts with -
coniercial or recreational fishing interests, as would probably be
the case if the siLe were located farther inshore or offshore."
4.03.8..1. Although the impacts of offshore disposal are
difficult to quantify, it would appear that the proposed plan would
be the least damaging to the marine environment and under certain
conditions might even be beneficial.
4.03.9. Rare and Endange red Species. The brown pelican is
the only endangered species which is common in the project area and
there is no reason to hclieve it would be affected by the proposed
deepening project. The project will not affect any other rare and
endangered species. 0
4.04. Archaeological and Historical Sites. Deepening of
the Charltston Harbor project channel an additional five to seven
feet would ihave no impact on archaeological or historical resources.
Cha;rleston tHarbor required significant dredging only after the com-
pletion of the San tee-Cooper Proiect in 10't2. Since most of the
ia Le, r ial to be dredged trom tile lower reaches of the harbor is sed i-
, " m.'nt deCposited :4ince 1942, there is little likelihood of disturbing
* .avthin, of historical value. Any archaeological resources which
might have been present in the other reaches were probably removed
dur i g :cxc ava Li on for the 35-foot project. The National Register of
[listIoric Phaces has bec't i consulted and it has been determined that the
proposed project will not re:uIlt in the transfer, sale, demolition,
or ;tibst ant ial ulto rat ion of potential or existing Nat lonal Register
p r pert i es. llie proposed pro eCt will have no c ffect on the preserva-
tion ind tnhance'ienLt ol ion-Fdrally owned districts, sites, building s,
-strulctures, and objcts ol historicl, irchacological, architectural,
or* clltuiral_ -sigiiticaince.
A.t. ,\ ithi t cs . .\ ide froi thle phvs ical pre seLnce (of the,
* uirod.;: ind floatinMg pi pi ne thlt wi ll be in the harbor during the
,,m true tion priod, ti, c l .pnIng of the Chann'l kill have little or
838' S S S S S '. "0
no effect on atheticis. The upland disposal site may be aesthetically -displeasin' to users f adcjaont lands
4.06. Air Qual. iv. Mhere will be a very minor increase
in air pol Lut ion as at resu1lt of operat .ion of the diesel and gasoline
engines on the dredge and sutpport vessels; however, the effects will
be temporary as wel as insinificant and probably not measurable at
,xistin air quality stations.
4.07. No ise. In view of the large expanse of open water,
nois, levels from dredge operations during the construction period
si11riot 5e raised obec onhlabvprsent leves.
4, 18. E'conomic Impact. The proposed deepening of
Ch.rleston Harbor will have a very favorable economic impact on the Sa.. [transportatiol savings for vessels carrying petroleum, con-
L.Iinrized cargo and dr' bulk ,argo ar, estimated to average $5,930,000
0 p,.r year over the project titCe or (harleston Harbor. Savings in
Sh'ipyard River for vessels carrvinz: petroleum and dry bulk cargo are
est imated at SI ,3 4 ,000 tfor the life of the project. These direct
bc nefits %,'ill be oht,,a inld beCeaus, e, a reduction in hazards to navi-
at ion and Utc bv I ar.cr v.ssL IS . intangible monetary benefits which
will be derived from the proposed project will be an increase in the .
number ot johs in the a rc as a result of the improvements, an increase
i U . S . C.u, t onirs cot Ie t c i ons, res-;ulIt i ng f rom increased volumes of -
C ommere , a d increascd property taxes paid to the local government.
lit- total investment cost for the recommended plan for deepening
hri r lestIoll ilror to 40 feet p lus overdredging is t27,186,000 plus
an iii.tiiir,1 I S1,1,00 for Shipyard Niver. The annual costs are
., ,Y)r, otr firle sto, .iarhor and 494'.,O00 for Shipyard River.
l. Sen, it-,,ost ratio is 1.2 lor Charleston Harbor and 1.44 for -
;i r. ird K i ye
*.K 1.a C., hil,, e' 1) redoing. As with the existing pro-
t :,,iit,.51: lr-li t .oild he require.d each year averaging an
i,. Ii t iw it 1,7 c7,1( 'iii v -rds (including 041 ,, ,000 cubic yards to be
raw- v.1' p iu r .1 , r.. ). iii k Iater ial would be disposed of in
i v seun• ml r - ; t:!,. kiit i,-l dredging work. Abou t
-S
S1
- ,. ,. 0
rrr.'r. ----- 1~-. -_-o
--- °- . .--
I •
49 acres of uplIaniid (21 ) acres for Shipyard River and 20 acres for
Charleston Harbor) would be required annually for disposal of the
shoal material. lhe impacts of maintenance dredging would be .
similar to those expected to result from harbor deepening although
they Would ,generall v hc of a lesser magnitude.
4.10. xisting Projects. The effects of the Charleston -
Harbor Project on other Federal, state and local projects varies 0
from a lack of any significant effect to some form of enhancement.
There wvill be no direct relationship between the proposed project
and the AIWN since the dimension of the latter is considerably less
than that of the existing harbor. The same applies to the Ashley
River project although it is inactive.
The Charleston Harbor deepening project has been
eva IriatCd with and without the Cooper River Rediversion Project and
ias been found to IwIVe a favorable benefit/cost ratio under either
condition although it is favorable at a lesser depth without rediver-
sion. Ilhc initial estimates of cost used to determine the economic
justification of the deepening plan assumed that the Cooper River
Rediversion would be implemented resulting in a substantial reduction
of harbor shoaling. In order to evaluate the effect possible delays
in construction of the Cooper River Rediversion Project might have
on harbor deepening and to respond to the numerous past inquiries made
regarding the economic effect of rediversion on harbor deepening,
the deepening plans were formulated without rediversion being
accomplished to see if an economical plan could still be developed.
'his effort revealed the following:
(1) The niost econo -ical plan of improvement (maximized) for
Ciharlu entin [arbor withont rediversion would be reduced from 40
to 38 feet; and (2 ) tlic most economical plan of improvement (maxi-
mized) f ir S Iipvard R iver would be reduced from 38 to 35 feet.
Ihese L, reducti oir' r.o ult lfro:i tiit large uan titiL's of shoal material
which would [i.1v, t,, i,. r,.ov1d annualliv.
1m1plheI'm t it in,11 ,I tlils interim plan of improvement ,,ould require
t t, removl a l t- irit el t 9,170,000) cubic vards of material from
tti iiiier hti r ,,r ind /7, P , ()0() cW)iii vi ards of mater ii I from Lthe outer
83
• ''L - ". L . , ... .... , - - - - . . . °, -m
* Sbar and entrance channel. Disposal acreages required for this
plan would be about 759 acres for initial construction and 79 %
acres per year for the additional maintenance dredging generated
by the project. _
The impacts of initial construction would be the same as those
resulting from the recommended plan. The numbers of acres required
for disposal of maintenance dredging materials would, of course,* S
be much greater under this plan. The approximate volume of materialwhich would be removed during annual maintenance dredging under both
harbor deepening plans with and without rediversion is shown in
Table I.* •
The haroor project would benefit the naval facilities just aboveGoose Creek bv offering the potential of use by certain vessels such
as the Trident submarine which could not now use the harbor. Deepening
of the harbor has no potential of interacting with projects of other
agencies except for that aspect associated with the disposal of dredged
material. In this regard, there is no consideration given to the
use of such areas for disposal of dredged material. Examples of such
projects are Forts Sumter and Moultrie of the National Park ServiceI S
and Hog Island which is the site of a proposed naval museum.
4.11 Mosquitoes. The use of diked disposal areas
creates favorable habitat for mosquitoes, particularly the salt-
marsh mosquito, Aedes sollicitans, which is a vicious biter and 0has a long flight range. Characteristics of diked disposal areas
that make such areas productive of mosquitoes is the elimination
of regular tidal flooding and the temporary ponding of water due
to uneven settling of dredged material and poor drainage. The
cracks that normally form during the drying of disposal areas
provide very favorable oviposition sites. Natural controls such
.is the maintenance of stable water levels or the achievement of
r,ipid drainage would greatly limit the production of mosquitoes
in disposal areas, but neither method appears practical because
Of physical characteristics of the disposal areas and material
86
W W * _ _
dredged from the harbor and also because of operational require-
ments of disposal areas. Although the Corps of Engineers is
funding research on mosquito production in disposal areas, mo-
squito control measures were not provided for in the Acts of
Congress authorizing the construction and maintenance of Charleston
Harbor. Mosquito control operations at disposal areas are con-
ducted by local government within the overall. mosquito control
program for Charleston County. The most commonly used insecti- "
cide is Flit 'M. L. 0., an oil larvicide which dissipates quickly
and has no effect on important forms of aquatic life. Since Flit -- .
has no residual effect, a control program utilizing oil larvi-
rides requires frequent inspection and respraying. 0
5.0 Any Probable Adverse Environmental Effects Which
Cinnot Bc Avoided.
A detailed discussion of all environmental impacts expected to result
rrov1 the project is contained in Section 4.0. Some of these impacts 0
are considered unfavorable, but cannot be avoided by any practical
means, withiln the authority and scope of the proposed project. Such
impacts are sunarized in the following paragraphs.
5.dl The principal adverse effects will be related to
Ltcnorarv changes in water quality and its effect on the harbor
<IId disposal areas ecosystems. These effects include: increased
turbiditie. Amd siltation in the vicinity of the dredge and disposal
jrca-; i te::iporairv decrease in primary productivity resulting from
Lur id ';atcr-, redling the euphotic zone; a possible loss of organisms
t irou:,h the i eaching of toxic substances from the upland disposal
, ar , id a ibhh reduction in dissolved oxygen levels as a result
te dre, t.e (hiturh i :, organic materials undergoing anaerobic
)l. O5!p i t 101 .
5.1)2 In addition, some benthic organisms may be
*'s trved by thog drd(,:, ,utterhead and others mav be covered in
the offshore dispo:saI ak rc,. Wildlife species inhabiting the up-
I mnd di qposa! ;re a will he, displaced by deposition of dredged
:% i tt.riaiLs. The cxist i % vegetation wi I be killed and regrowth
uprt,'.'~ncI until the tuset ot such areav s &*ae.
86a
- - _ - w , w W W W S S S
. '.. i- .- .'. X.3 . .. • .' -
6.0 \l ternat ive-s to the Proposed Act ion.
b.01 . Al ter nat i ves meet ing aLl1 p roj ec t obj ec t ives . The-0
obje. -vsetabi ishedi for tile Charleston Harbor Navigation project
as a resl-,t Of the 1.,r ious stud iks conducted in response to various
congressional resolutions are: (a) the deepening of thle existing
ha, rbor channels and ainc ho rages to permit larg-er ships to load and
unload carzoes, (b) the development of a nractical long-range
solution to the d isposal of dredged material with particular ref-
erence to estuar ine values. The only alternatives that can mleet
these two objective,, are the ones providioc for channel deepening.
The varitous mieans considered to nrovide a -solution to thle problemi
of disnosing; oif the mnaterial dredged to construct and maintain
these channels is Jiscussed in Section 6.05, Dredging alternatives.
19Althoug h all dekepe~ning ailternatives meet to some extent these ob-0
ectives, it is obvious that depth restrictions decrease directly
as channel de:)Lh Is increased. in the studies of deepening thle
exist ing' chalnnels aInd anchorag es, several depths were evaluated.
ALl depthis considered had favorable benefit/cost ratio-,, but the
alternative that was selected had the hiOihest cxces-s of benefits -
and other cons iderat ions being approximately eqtual, it was there-
fore selected. The environmental impacts of these alternatives a r e
similar and vary maiinly- in connection with the volume of material0
to he dredged and the impacts associated with its disposal. The
Maio itL1ie Of thle disosl operation would increase withi channel
(d02 t h and the (i iso-osa I op t ions hj hrequi re thle use of upland
d isoa1s it k-s %v.on I reqou ire d re i soosa I areas. The environ-
-er,,I-J1 frl200, tsor cch i I1 ternat ivii would he similar to those
riJ or te 1, I ted i I t ur na t i ve i n Section 4, and would
tir' l' Wi~ ;o~a it 'ecteul. dIsposal options which
0 r, 1 :it i i to Ii cit ilo -,(u C 1 V01 th1'e oos it ion Of all materi a]l
1: y 1 i l i "_ (5 .i l t to de fin(,,
it ill nu1"ikl i I,2 rv,, i -nhuon d isposal operation,
I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Il n -: .: r- n. iat iv':non-
* 0
PREVIOUS PAGE
*~~~~~~I BLANK9 9 9 3 3
vc - i -,I t i "T- I: 1.i'," ' . iivsl v 11c is v ,t h i i Uo i Im - i I lI i -
A 1-t t ~ -I L1 ,Iso2 ois- t 1~~t tio t-, WI I i n
>5: ix.--~~ sovws't 'iv Ti i t V A 1) t t n. ir ficn
c iriii I t i1., S ItS 0 1~ P- IT-. i I ST -S (jSS C 1 tQ( i th th
1r-ii:vs nc Tuv cr~ t !,).I 'iI. I c- - v r or , wh ii Iturrative. Snc o
lt'e r t:-n :,I irs Sr L,- vs k di r e drudgi ng var ie s
I-,> tLi L55 '> c- t -vi s c at o, %.. i tit1 L c1 redi i nig
1% u It i* ) . 0.1 0!_ t:> . -vna ST Lt c'tri!fcsurat:u :ithi thet
'wt--:! iIL-- 'lnc Ih(i n- loaIi 7ed
:1>-IS!~~ c. . ct. _ > ui on tiie 11iota incind ills.
* I c~'-nm it t. ii Lt-i t s c~u ' re eval ua ted .
ii.tti i:l iilmt 's t on 11arbor and. :h n H-so: ~ ~ ~ '01 dvr 1: ~ vih remiiv rli t, 5O\O v t a :5,454,000
. - ,ikt i I i5 t i r I r 't-stn 01 .rbor
v I .t tvt-V r h 'Itsoin (L !fWin-
IS -~& i mtq ;)_,r( no2~ irei.''.'otil(I
11SI .s t i1 1 d ' ro t~mv e 'reil
it' i
w *1
.\ .- ! ot i:~~tl ii i .i I -<t i Hrlbor ;ifl( a 38-
tot1o i iirv1 I'i.'r 'I i i ii Atcrnti c, u Ld require
F~ 7 0cx V *. *-4 2 OA k j - , ; I. h'a~ Cai dt C-rZ Ip)roject
n Ch r I - o1 11, Cu ,: .. C~l () r ti er iil a i n
I-trni rxi ~r. 1'ix tonr-;'JcrL1e! :i.itcrial to
t-> 110Cl Ali 9rir ai-i'i 40,0)00 c'ubic
or ti tra t' :i1,!H $51,893,000
oU 'r, S 7:c~ h 3 00
4t L' C 'L P10 ? k CL1
cm n-iT t' c Lrinicitive to c hainne I
* '' t" k- ind contatiner shi=ra w-ould
a I- .'t: L~ A~'i. I iitro xstone as con-0
-I, - C. Iilhl , o F .,rea ter dep~t h than the
r-. -,c t , )niicti.ig 'to, entrance channel and
r. h* .1c w 0 ill I~i -loouo fu I oded yes-
C - -.. .* u.xi ., oi as;(i rat Lof C'hannels to 0
ou I~ 1,, -. itt i l 1,,l loided J irec tl\ on-
tt MU' '1 11C iV -t a' c s , have
- ~ ~ ~ 1 Jtf I il tI . i t'Ic t ion, the lj~ght
o, I , v1 . I t11j J, 1 'cr:'cna.1 tacilities
r i1Il Ia 1ii i-~' revkjricd for out-
t H 'lrC't i C;I for
I iIzd emci a-
'taIlitt, r o and
1: 1 i I I Lv ' Y.1~~ 11CF ,1 i 1 i ti. 2
*~~~7 C11 I IM L? I
Man V t an~ker Owners I'anId c ib r t c r pa rt i es p) roli lb1 i t t lie use o f igh t e rs
:or ma~iter ials- o f lox- Iish po in t. Th is excl 1us ion is wr it ten i nto
-;a11 Ci 011 co tnlt s here, t hie l)iuve r f urn ishes thle vesselI. 1, i gh ter--
il~ l- o j ilt reOduce's problemTs of qutal i tv and quali ty control . M e r e
taInkers take-( onl cargoes of several products, the cargo co-nf igurat ions
c cOntrol 1 l.st and~ -Iraft could result Ln ser ious irmbalance inI 0
TIall iti es- o0 commod ities to he 1 1gbtered . Blecause of these operational
a ta~.anagc , 11 oter'esysemwas; deemed to be impract ical and
s net conIs de red fuLir t her . The env ironmen t a 11mpac ts of this alt er-
:Ii, y wuli be s iri Lir to those4 of the selected alternative but
,.01L I)C 0e Af a esr a'ituebcause of a smalleor construct ion
Pt lit c r~c1 eurmn
sh Iore ocean terminial . An offshore orcean terminal
I i r-:u ire the constructing of a common unloading terminal in S
i-:roe a- tcIY 4 ~5 to 50 1 'e t deep kci tli overlIand and submerged
p I I ilt- nes connect inc the existing terminals at (Charleston. An off-
s Lx.c -rr'ina l w'ou Id provide a workable solIut ion For common handl1ing
ci n- rel I ei:m and( petrol eum products; however, it would present several
* rptI :.: '>rel ems of- product hand! in,( and quality control and would be
..e'ajnllx'eL betal to n-Lt t ~Ca rate. As with the lighterage
* ~ :sem *t lx is :1 tc, svtm;ould be unacceptable for container
'Ili s.Th tremen~idous- cos t of anl of fshiore terminal, total invest-
'r ti- itedl over S70,000,000 wi,,th annual charges approaching
7,ii(() ,00 woldil. so remove this al ternativye from consideration.
iili- lIternit ivi. ul not have the environmental imnacts associated
* rdri n epe(rati(ton that would character ize the selected
11 rn~it lye. It would have other impa);cts such as the destruction
:ilrl:l ii ailt eritioii of uIplandC site(s that would bie required during
01! Lr I ~icn of the ci tel ines2 '0nn1eit inc the offshore terminal
.,<r:.jIri 11 (Inig; P,int L. Tis al;;iItcrna iti ve woulId
! I, oil. t1 cit io 0 o1 t .i ,-monn t er7 i il~ and s t o ragc tanik f arm
loi
!ttid li11i1 im it ....
lw 'I m cc *l'i il' 1 '11.
CI LI I . Ii I 1. 1it l i, I ld 1 1 1t I ii h ii ; IlIIl TI
it lii i i i : : '11.1 i it 1 1 : ;ti ;ll lt I"t 'i
I llmt.iillitt lit1d
*;.i In0;o ,w ,l Ni t
IT, I (w 1.( 4,1: wm 1S Sc S'1 v
LI d I ~ ,- 1. l -)' i !
.- -7
similar to those of the reconmmended plan and the other channel
alternatives, differin; mainly in that the impacts of no action
are of less.er macnitude. In view of the criticallv short supply ..
of di. Sosal areas, the samie techniques of disposal of dredged
mate rial will prol,,hlv hV used in the near future for this alter-
nat i Ve as would be used for the selected alternative. In addition
to these impa'ts, this alternative would also adversely affect the mlocal and regional economv. FoLture growth and expansion will also
occur at a slower rate. Certain shipping interests have stopped
visiting Charleston Harbor and others may follow in the future
because of the inability of the harbor to accommodate the deeper
draft vessels now in vogue. This alternative was rejected to
avoid forfeiture of the economic benefits to the local area and
region which would accrue to this project at relatively small
environmental cost. p
Drekdging alternatives. Studies of the dredging
opirit ion were 'onducte2d in response to Congressional directives
to Iew-lo;, a prac t ica I long-range solution to the disposal of _ 0
material dred ed from Charleston Harbor with particular reference
to stuariuc values. Ten plans were evaluated and these are dis-
cussed in the following paragraphs. More detailed information on
th,-es dredging alternatives is contained in the Report on Long- •
R ange Disposal Study, Charleston Harbor, S. C., which is available
for review in the Charleston District Office. Since that part of
the dredging operation that is concerned only with the removal of
the -;hoal deposits is similar under all plans in that it involves p
the use of a cutterhead and pipeline, the environmental impacts
associated with this part of the overall operation will not be re-
peated here. The means and methods of disposal vary and these will
be discussed in greater detail.
Plan 1. Continuation of the presently used method which in-
volves the removal of shoal material by pipeline dredge and per-
0 P2
r j
The us o r-
3r :irr rr jct ria-, ivt r -
'- C ' : r V is t e c hajn nh- I av i f tvp'. '
3, r .' . I i i n r the N v y chas ' ciii
<'53 vs ri ho c)1!, in t
''1>2th I h f .r' rca'K i se riir.I
: ftmka IrI' i a I I' It, eK th am r t rerui
'''1 itv I i. 'a v i n; v :n --at ad v'ru f tf o n t he0
C~~~~ ' .' PA' ' h a rrjfl tv- wm II i nvo Ile mach glreater
r) n I-F rI3. I MAet c0 (I 'a Imerit i n the outer harlbor,
hi r h ) urln G ir J-r'2 I I I14 (':I beca us
'() I 'h I i 1 1
0 I10
,, -- 0
c-s ... ..-. - -~. - -~ . - . •.-- .. ,5- --i-%*%".-- - -
which would function as a temporary disposal area until the material .
could be transported to an offshore disposal area bv pipeline.
The initial dredging would be accomplished by rivately-owned dredges
under contract and the later transfer of the shoal material to sea
would be accomplished bv a government-owned and operated unit con- •1
sisting of a long pipeline into the ocean with electric booster -* 0
stations as required to cope with the long distances involved.
The estimated annual cost of this plan is S4,814,000. The impact
on the ocean dumping gtround would be similar to that of Plan 2 but - --
a greater accumulation of material might result under this plan -
since the dumping operation of the hopper dredge results in the
greatest possible dispersion and resuspension of shoal material.
Greater accumulations of shoal material would not be significant
because this area now consists of fine to coarse sand and shell
and its natural productivity is relatively low. There would be
no significant environmental impacts resulting from the use of
an existing disposal area on Daniels Island as a temporary disposal
area. The pipeline and booster stations will be routed through 0 •
open water areas and would not have significant impact on water
bottoms.
Plan 3A. This plan is identical to Plan 3 except that diesel
powered booster units would be used instead of electric power units. O 0
The estimated annual cost of this nlan is $4,879,000. Its environ-
mental imnacts would be similar to those of Plan 3.
Plan 4. Removal of shoal material by pipeline dredge and the -
transfer of this material to the Daniels Island disposal area and .
Area I just above Goose Creek, which areas would function as tem-
norarv disposal areas until the material could be transported to
an offshore disposal area bv ripeline. This plan is identical to * 0
Plan 3 except that apnro.:imatelv 20 percent of the shoal material
would be initially pumped into Area I instead of entirely into the
Daniels Is]and disnosil area. This "1lan was developed in an effort
94
1P 4P 0 S 0 5 S S S
to reduce costs by using a term:orarv area closer to the shoalsin the upper part of the harbor project. The estimated annual
cost oF this plan is $4,759,000. [ts environmental impacts
would also be similar to that of Plan 3.
Plan 4A. This plan is identical to Plan 4 except that diesel
powered booster units would be used instead of electric power
units. The estimated annual cost of this plan is $4,821,000.
Its environmental imnacts would be similar to those of Plan 4.
Plan S. Removal of shoal material by pipeline dredge and
the transfer of this material to the Daniels Island disposal
area, which would function as a temporary disposal area until
the r-aterial could be transported to an offshore disposal area by
barge. The estimated annual cost of this plan is $5,325,000.
The environmental impacts of this plan most closely resemble
those of Plan 2 in that under both Plans, all of the dredged
material is transported to the offshore disposal area where it
would be discharged at the waters surface.
Plan 6. Removal of shoal material by pipeline dredge and
the transfer of this material to the Daniels Island disposal
area and Area I just above Goose Creek, which areas would
function as teml-orarv disposal areas until the material could
be transported to remote inland disposal areas by pipeline.
This plan is similar to Plan 4 except that the material would
be trans'norted to diked inland disosal areas instead of to
the ofIfrhre disposal ,rea. The tentative location of inland
dispos,l areas is along the ,'ando ;river. .!o'st of these areas
would bc high land !,ut some h igher marshland would be included.
.ajor t idal CrCeks ,ould be avoided. This represents a co"moro-
m i e bet''een ('cormo(mri('s (liand costs) ind marsh Preservation.
Th'lie est iinited ,mnnual cost of th is rTl an is $4.247,0010. Complete
iivoi'lan( , of ,1 mirsh I mid would increase the costs; of this
Pl;n. A II ve, tat ion in thIet,L disposal areas would be 1illed
(45
. •o .
andl these a reas Wkul U lo.,, what val1ue the,, ilay, have as wildlife
hu ab i ta t FaCh LArea may,1 he used I-or some years so that this loss
represents i fiirlv, long-term commitment. 'Then f illed to capa-
c ity, these -ircais h:uib reve~zotated aind eventually, tree growth
charic terist ic Of UplAand habitat will become established. In the
upland areas, this tree growth ma'. be similar to the natural growth
nrosent before the i r use as d isposal areas. The use of high marsh- 0
areas will res-ult in their permanent conversion to upland tree
hub -ttAt aiFt-0or the' ;1a\ve been used to C anacitv. The loss of this
nQmarsh repireseunts a, loss ot some of the least productive of
estuarine arcas;. The upland habitat that would be taken out of
productivit,- :- or a relativeix, long time is a common habitat type
t 1 1r 7 U L 1 ( h O U t t h e W La.e a
1 ain 7. Tb is 7nlan is; s imilar to Plan 6 except that the dredged0
* material ,oulu1 be transported to the remote inland disnosal areas
*bv truck instead of b)y, pipeline. The estimated annual cost of this
-Plan is S 10,672,0OQ, which is considered excessive in comparison
with other plans. The environmencal impacts would also be similar
to those of Plan 6.
P1lan 8. Reumoval of- shoal rmat cr1al by a special dredge designed
to ut ilize ba ie nd the us e of these barges to convey the material
U irec tlv to t he offIshore dispos.al area, This Dlan is similar to
Plan 2 eXep hat tht: U rodpcd material would be transported to the
L't 4!Wr(,1 :sjt_ by !bur4g instro'id of b,, hopper dredge. The esti-
* ~ ~ ~ ~ i ,a ;, nua ~ ~ft I an i<- '2,7O,0OO. The environmental im-r pe(t :,11uld il~~ bte similar to tiose of Plan 2
i*K)The! k Iat i oro;h i p Hoe twcori Loca I Short-Term Hses
of s E rv iornmcnt and the 'lXi i ntenanco aJnd Enhancement of-
kLon -Trrt'r( reuc t i v i I.
7.01. The pr inc i pal lonj-tform ef fect of the project
relates to its stimu lus of thte local a :nd reoionalI economy wh ich
woulId rys--ulI t f rom improved naiviqjabi I ity of the deeper channel s0
in the hajrbor These deeper ch,-innelIs woulId permit the unre-stricted-
us~e of the lhw)bor 'Ly most of the Iarfqer ships which now must either-
use )the:.r port,, or use Chajrteston Harbor I i qht- loadod.-
70?. The principal short-term effects of the project
relaite to the a)ctualI deepeningj of Charloston Harbor hy hydraul ic
!rodie a nd the disposal of the material so dredqled in remote
dinoalroaLs. Since the first feaiture represents the removal
of r,-c n Pitly kepes itIed and u nconso Ii dajted f i ne sed imen ts hayving
little itilIity to any important lif ftotrms, the actual doepeninq
won)l~ ri:ot conflIict wi th other longl-term uses;. The aict ion of the
en tterheaid drodcei woul i ha-ve temporary and l ocali Ized effects on
wa-]te"r gui Il i ty Nh i,:h are niot ionsiderqd to be of a maq(n itude- to
if ft0,t lena(-term prod'ct iv ity. I ind md IisposalI areas, are, used,-
the, of f non t from sujch irrea' won da s have a temporary and '
I ea- I i .7-d cf f~ 'a-n wa iter qua- I i ty.0
j 0 . Th( ise'.m of the ma tforia I dredged-( from the
hairbor lhas- somo pet-en Via i for Ilon-termr conseoquences - depe-nd i
on h-i moajns and -r'thol t H-,'n fir- it-. final (lis-p-sa I. Two pn' j,
* iO' m r-I(:mm-tidt "(r fv ther con,-ider ition. The plain pr( vidinq
f )r f fti rr ri~ t' I I icol w t or i Ifai1 1in tjnf!otI ryi nod
f t i I J iv rl t firn bir(Iitiil protmictivi ly in the
SI i Ir I h, at h, )h I w h ic-h ifnlv( I v, f h,
*I f ' I i ' r t f in ' I r i ind ,i ft w i I I r n I t i r
fr )n i f' t I, I5 iv I t fi oind jti fy flh- Ii huv
f Sr 'Ii I iif Iiri , rSt h r , i
!r .!CI
','.,i~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~r i 'n ,i "t i:L 3 !. :7 , h::, ; :r , ,.... ,1," n .
I,, 'I " t n' :3 , 3','' r r , Hj , . .... • ] > I
- I r , ' -. ! I, r r I,, t I.. ' I !. r u nm, I t'
I . II ''\ I 'II , , ,
I 0
'1 r r I 3I. ~lt
t I. it, t r , , , i ,,
SII j v '
. r n n I w JIII r t vh;'
v r r I r t j I : I I t r,
•~ ~~~~ ~~~ t t'.,r • .'r. ; r h ,:f 'r ; i I, f~., mhiv, f , :n ], , i,,] i
* 0
....................... i. fri ''with" } '
h, *ii ?r:!. . ,i ll i vuv' 3r. r tixv 1 r(rmr/it-;
• ,, ... r-I
II
0
• S
.01Coordination With Others.
9.O1. .\ nublic meeting was held on 29 Ma-y 1968 to obtain
the vievs of the public regarding proposed navigation improvementsin Charleston Harbor and various methods of disposing of dredged .7 ]material. All in attendance at this meeting expressed a desire
for harbor improvenents in the interest of economic development.
Some expressed concern regarding the effects of dredging on environ-
mental valueQ.
9.02. A second public meeting was held on 20 June 1974 •
to inform the public of the status of project studies and to solicit
the views and comments of public and private interests on the pre-
14minarv f indings. The maioritv of those in attendance expressed
a:rproval of the proposed develorment and a desire for pronpt imple- S
mentation of the pro ect. .\ few e:*:pressed doubts about the need
or :practicalitv of the proposed project and questioned its desira-
bilitv in view of what were seen as significant adverse environmental
inrvacts. S
9.03. In resonse to a request to the U. S. Fish and
Wildlife Service for an evaluation of the effects of dredging and
of various disposal methods on the area ecosystem, the Service
formed! an ad hoc co-mittee of experts in affected natural resource
fields to develop and coordinate a plan of stud-, and to evaluate
the results of these studies. \s a result of the recommendations
of this committee, the following reports were prepared under con-
tract to the 1'. S. Arm\, Corns of Engineers:
Ia. \ report on regional and local stratigraphy
and sedimentat ion in the Chlirlestoi , s iarhor area, Pe,)artnent of
4 ;u'; [,i 'nivers t ( of South C:irolina, ). f. Colqunoun. 0
h. 1,ioassav studies, Charleston Harbor, South
(. roli:1a,; tT' lih ef fuct.S of dred ing harbor sediments on Plankton,
llWl ",artich Cki stal ' ese.irc!i inst itute, in vers1t,. oF South S
99
* S S 0S S 5 0 S 0 5
L'ffects of dredged harbor sediments on larval
estuarin 1i h iconrmion to Charleston Harbor, South Carolina, National
Marine Fisher i . Serv ice, BeotI)rt , NOrt h Ca rolin i.
d. A study oF the Charleston Harbor Estuary withs: ec jal re:-erece to deposition of dredged sediments, Olffice of
'Marine Conservation, Manaoement and Services, South Carolina ,Ti id- 0
life and 'larine iResources Dc partment.
The ad hoc coma itteu administering these studies is chaired hrv a
representat ire oCf the U. S. Fish and 1ildl ife Service and this
a..encx will Dreare and submit a report containing the conclus ions
and recomnuendattons of the Service relating to the proposed project.
I.Y
4p 0
I (Jr
* S S S S S S S S 5
i ,w .m q i - - j •V 7 . u o_ n _ • _1
9.0-4 Coord in nt in oI drait t 111S.
a. Government agenc ies
C S. DOprtment of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service
Comment: Appropriate members of mv staff have revieowed the draft
environmental impact statement for the Charleston Harbor IJeepening
Project_ and we have no comments to offer.
Resaon Ls e: No response is required. S
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare
CTomment: We have reviewed the subject draft Environmental Impact
Statt.m1nt . Based upon the data contained in the draft, it is our
o'pinion that this proposed action will have only a minor impact upon
the human environment with respect to the concerns of this Department.
Re0s-pose: No response is required.
Federal Power Commission
Comment: A review of the report indicates that the proposed plan
,,,o1uldi hlive no sisnificant effect on such facilities. However, if
there ire any electrical power transmission facilities or natural
p .:i fiiilitirs cxisting in the vicinity, these should be protected
dlur ii" const rutc t ion.
OpI n .: n , I r et ri,'ll power transmiss ion facilities or natural
,. i- ij iti' ist Lu_ in the vicinity will be protected during
'nTl t rie t i on.
P. . - iL rL it I t -r -ior
. : .,t ., ir,, plt.i-,.d to note that initial steps have blt.n
t il-n t r 1 , ,it h t ii r, ,,11i ,.nIi1ts of the Advisory Con t- i I on
I!i-.tor', P'rrn ,rv:it ion',; "Proctdtirts for the Protection of Historic
11nd ('iI tu ril IPrp,.rt i .' ( i.dtrilI Registe r tct ion 80 l, .lanu:irv % ,
* 0 4 01P P.* S S S S S S S S S S S, S
k. 1 :i it icn.it .I Ae4 tcrr ot iliStorie- P lace , lists- known-I
',It tr it 1 i i t 'r i I rc I w I o0, i caI, arch i t e Ctinral ) resources. t
e I', TW-; Li ti 0 t e IC ',111,t Vo t1 Li no1, tor c Ons 1ing agencyv
IetV t ~~re Ii t he i1rca of pro jeCL t ipaC t whriich
In' 0'1 lr-1O ni nit i on o r in ie 1 process of nominaI on,
I, I nIi ro;LJv I i L .i i n L he .a tiona1I Reg is ter.
j 1 It iit ni t, ri ve nt hen ui prfion iv evalujcctmat then i
t I, pn- t i A I 1 - -Lv v ol th Ieea agencer t o I thd bcsutn
I11A, i)1 i,- moIle,. iKesut tofc tile cvaluation sho-uld also be in-
!,,,IJ ill t;Ie I tu -;l ucnn .signif icant cultural resources,
* ~ ~ iii isl,-l"nfh or uinderwatcr, which are subject to
in Fil r1 10i 01- LrL~T'Iu, by thcp 1W1)1-0 csh Ion i h e Isalvaged.
* ,-.~vn>~: (I) lin prloo ,d proj~ec t as present tv def ined wil I not
* i i ill','rip rt v I i ;tc~d on thei Nat ional Regis ter of Iii s toric
,r iv p rope rt v that i-o c, I j-ib Ic for nomination to thle Regis-
I t h eW p r p r o j - e t heI
I)F ii'L tj:iir is, aUthorized by tieCongress.-, iistoricalI
-te t-~ dringpost authorization planning.
(I i,1 ;Iii; heL-n -oordin,'ted with tihe Staite Hlistoric. Pre-
iti 1t-------- .,, ro v c f t o rt w 1)(he :Tmidi( to p))ro tec t an d sl;Iva ge
t to ri I Ior en I tur. I i i Il Cane th1alt may he mni-overeni
o~nt -.e 'i't <-'I L I . -ri fiention he mnade tin di ffe-re-tuate
- i'ti I .~IIt I doi uo ind "ri-eori-ndi-I doautimori /;PI n" n
*10,
*~~ 1P 4P U 0 5P0
Response: The differentiation has been clarified in the Final EIS.
3. Comment: 1.0 Projecz Description: _
(a) The term "upland disposal" is defined on page 22 as "disposal
above the highwater mark." Throughout the statement the term
"upland" is used frequently, without further explanation. The term
"upland" appears to have been used only as a means to differentiate
areas that are above from areas that are below the mean high water
line. We believe such a usage is misleading and suggest it be clari-
fied.
Response: As stated on page 22, the phrase "disposal above the high-
water mark" is terminology used by the EPA in their letter dated 29
November 1972. The assumption that upland refers to areas above the
mean high water line is correct. S
4. Comment: 1.04:
The last paragraph indicates that approximately 1,110 acres of
new diked disposal areas would be needed, probably on Daniel Island S
proper. It is our understanding that these disposal areas have not
been selected. The environmental impact statement should either
provide a general description of the probable locality on Danicl Island
or state why such a description has been omitted, e.g., that a disposal 0
area has not been selected.
Response: 'The acquisition of disposal areas, which is the responsi-
Sbitytv of the State of South Carolina as the project sponsor, will not S
be accomplished until after the project is authorized by the Congress.
However, a general description of the areas used for cost estimates
nas oeen added t, Section 2.13 of the EIS.
0 3 -
0 W W V W 0 M W W V W 0
5 Commnt: 2. 0 Lnvironmental Sett ing Without the Project:
2.07.3:
No mineral product ion has been recorded in recent years in - 0
Charleston County. Sand, an abundant resource in the area, has
been produced in the recent past in the county. The statement
indicates that, "The Charleston area. . . was formerly the most
productive area of phosphate in the state," (but) ". . mining 0
in the area has been insignificant since 1920 and ceased entirely
in 1938.
Investi at ions by the U. S. Geological Survey indicate the
presenCe of heavy minerals on James Island and on nearby Isle of
Palms ind Folly Beach. However, the statement does not indicate
the possible presence of heavy minerals in the project area.
Sect'icn 2.07.3 should be expanded to reflect consideration of 0
heavy minerals as potential resources. The impact of the project
,in these resources should be discussed in sections 4.0, 5.0 and 8.0.
Reaspose: Heavy mineral resources on James Island and on nearby
Isle of Palms and Folly Beach will not be affected by the proposed
proje,'L. As a result, a detailed discussion of these resources
would add little to the EIS.
6. Comment: 2.16:
We suggest the statement contain maps of sufficient scale to
clearlv depict the location of all cultural resources in the Charleston
area-,ithin the zone of pro ,ct impact.
Respnqe: Other than c, Vt ing navigation channels, the only area
to be a tfctcd hV tile pro ict is thl, upland di sposal area which will
nlt he I)'pal r,_ h th projcct sponsor until the project is authorized S
h; U, cr," -. U.lttr. l r:soirces of any potential disposal site will
1w cons idh,r,.d duri u p >s;t aitthorization studies. A map showing the
le.It ilM 0' Ili ctltr.all resources in the Charleston area would add
littl,, t t ik, 1,lq 4in,, the ,, rcsotirces will not be affected in any
i h: th p re t.
* -w W W U S 5 5 )0*
•*1
Cmment 4.0 The Probahi impact of the Proposed Action
on the E"nvironment:
(a) "'ll enutire per, imeter of the Daniel Island site, as shown .
by a comparison of figures 4 and 10, is near sea level and must
be marsh unless the fo rme r marsh has already been destroyed by
spoil deposition. Such deposition on marshland has not been indi-
cated on figure 10. nor has it been mentioned in the text. Figure 0
10 also siok,'s that the former disposal area is diked and that the
spoils were clearly deposited on marshland, as the perimeter of the
;pci I area is ringed by surviving marsh. The fact that all present
-spoit areas shown on figure 4 extend to the water's edge, or beyond, 0
suogests that marsh bordering the shore will inevitably be destroyed,
or already has been during recent disposal operations. We suggest
these apparent discrepancies be clarified.
(b) It is stated that "The Charleston Harbor estuary contains
thousands of acres of productive salt marshes, none of which would
be affected by the proposed project since dredged materials would be
disposed of .n upland sites or in approved offshore areas." We 1 6
feel that thi!; statement needs to be supported by map documentation, .
as maps now provided (e.g., figure 10) suggest that the disposal
areas delineated on figlure 4 include considerable marsh. That map
is highly generalized with regard to disposal area limits, being at •
a scale of only 1:175,000 (about 2.7 miles equal 1 inch). Disposal
areas should ho delineated in sufficient detail to show the location
of ,.xistin or proposed dikes with respect to shorelines, tidal inlets,
and the limits of marshlands
RL',eSPj n5: (a) I Fi"'uret wa incuded in the EIS to give the reviewer
;I n( n ral overview of tihe loc t ions of di sposal areas used for past
and p rsent Charleston Iarb or mai nL enn eCc dredging. These disposal
areas hav,, in most cases, been used for several years for the deposi-
tion of materials generated by maiintenance dredging and are not going
to he ,ised for tie ha rbor deenpling projcct. Dredged material.s
4 ; , nerate;d by the propo-;ed projecl , ;as discussed in the ViIS, will be S
1))
* U U U U U U U I U U U U U
D 0
depos ite d on (1)ipland areas on and north of Daniel Island which are not -
del in'tCd n Figure 4, in an existing disposal area on Morris Island, •.--
aiu i T an approved of fshore area. -r
Figure 10 is a reproduction of an old navigation chart of the
Wando River and was included only to show the location of sediment
sampling stations in the Wando River. The boundary shown for the -
Daniel Island disposal area is not an accurate representation of
the c orrent boundarv.
(b) As discussed in the EIS, the only areas being considered for •
disposal of dred,4ed materials generated by the harbor deepening project
(both initial construction and maintenance dredging) are upland areas Ion and northearI of Daniel island, an existing disposal area on Morris
Islad, and an approved offshore area. As a result, the statement
1),ilraphrased in p~iragraph (b) of this comment is correct since none
of the productiV, mars hes in Charleston Harbor will be affected byac decoonin- Proje ct. A detailed delineation of disposal areas in A
tlh harbor as requsted in this comment is not considered to be
neessarv sincec none of the existing areas will be utilized, however,
.L J,,-r i pti on o t Ise a reas nas bee-u aude, to Section 2.13 of the ELIS.
8. Comment: 4 .04: •
hw -tional Register lists only known cultural resources. The
constrction agency cannot take for granted that all such resources
in thC pro oct are a are known. Despite the fact that most of the
miteri.il to h,, removed by dredging has been deposited in modern times,
it in plbihle that historic shipwreck sites will be disturbed. -
Charleston Harbor and the mouth of the Cooper River were extensively -
lit I i od b1V nIva ves;Wls dut inIg the Revo utionary and Civil Wars,
;1(d mre y :llhi p; ' r / sunk in this vicinity. Although modern debris S
,.'LILd -Ike :i prepro t,t nnderwater survey impractical, arrangements
501Uld h, 71,d/' to l ,ot he )f fic, of the State Archeologist in the
,vnt evi. , (o hi ;toric shipwreck is revaled during dredging
lit h rtiI ,ttrl '.terial may sialvni ed and preserved. •
b ] w w
;R2S)1'sn : eil Of t'ice at L h e St ate Arclienlog i. s will be not ified in
tiE eveLnt evi Jenc, of an historic ;h £pwrec k is revealed during
d W i o L nat 11rt i facturaI limterLa I may hie salvaged and preserved.
L. ~~8f~l . 10
1\eI Lretiee i s madc t o thei Coope.?r Ri ver Rediversion project . Th is
rreLnCee;iO sno Ii), he eanded to stress the significant relationship
oi hspre !OecI Lo the future of the C'_harleston Harbor project. It
Shou1 Iih p dOut t hat thO 1long- term planning presented in this
cayroe~ t a impat satelintis based on the assumption that the
re'd iy rs i on p ro iec t vi I I bc completed , and wi thout redivers ion, the
e: raienia I imrpaict staitement would requi re major revision.
Responde :Act a i led i isen is ,ion of the relationship between the harbor
dcepeni n pro lect and tlhe Cooper River Redivers ion project has been
aidded to the reterenk ed secti on.
0 I. C omment: 6 .0 Alternatives to the Proposed Act ion:6
Pic spclal studies co_-nducted at the request of the Corps of
111in beelrs resu 1 ted in the recommendation by the Fish and Wildlife
eriethat the miost desi raihe alternative to sea disposal environ-
menal lvt, Vwiould he (1lisposal in diked areas located inland above the
1rh . W ,1k1 ieve, the envi ronmiental statement should be expanded to
al-n the cons ide rat ion given to such an alternative.
dn- liscnsse SLd in the AS, materials, dredged f rom the entrance
nan I mI hLe;, 1e i i an ;ri aprovcod of f-heore area, materials
Jr ': - t ron; hc tira inc a>i would he, p1 aced in tLhe Morris Island
d i s iro anld mtriaI.dredvani(, frem the harbor and Shipyard River
I I 1I fcl '11 111)iiild ,iI'I- Dinjel ,Is and which are located inland
I r a. I i 1W a --- t t he ." var- onv dispesal miethods. are
1 1! 1 01io L e 11
6 0-
roa:'' 1 t I' 1 t t i 00 l O~
-~~~~~~~~~ - - -. - - - - - -
I. Cr'wcnt :i Io, I.V t wwod the )ril t lnvironmental Impact
to. .'p 1 -in ') Ct ;iirlcston iLirbor and Shipyard
iver in Slutt I'x. ir.I and finl thAt exceptionally good coverage
is :,iv,i i to hE 0V r.ill cvironment. llowcver, there are several
areai0 oh concirn to whici furt her ,onsideration should be given: S
(I1 .\ 1wti r J--;cription ,I c,,icli of the upland disposal sites,
(2) A dt.tai lud AcCOMnt of the biota on these sites, and (3) the
e tct 1 1 t I I i , ,l I- il I , olt i n in saltwater on these sites.
._:pixIj : ,cq >iti ,n of di- posal ireas, which is the res-
ponsixil it\ I, th, Stit, ,-ot oxith (irol inxa as the project sponsor,
w.ill ot ! A'cop I 1 ,i -xhxd nt ii it ter the I)roject is authorized by
tiu on.-Cn r'- . tIt wx0u i tie c c, - t io0n ot spec i fic disposal areas
i a; ;pl i , t it-.lthlri tion planning, the project sponsor has
indij'itod tihit it is desi rabLe from his position that t hese disposal0 e,,0 )Q 1,, -t in 41 hr thiward (0 l),ni I Island and on Morris
LI I AIk n 0
l.0d. ,\ .:,,a' I'* , , , ,Ifl I 1 -.ist 1 disposal areas and
tI 1 ,1'. lr,., I ,I c- st istim ts s een added to Section
* 0I
* . (Cmx ci L: Irthermore, ailthough ei-lit plans for the disposal of
spoi I are disc'ussed, it does not appear that any decision has been
.. ide l >, to .l ich plan will he used. It is noted, however, that in the
hot,im .ivvi ikS , I 'p ,rts 01 the Chirleston Harbor, preference is
iv-i i to d il l of fmiteri i ls :it sea via special dredge and barge
(' 1,ix ,). It ih; al ity, td that implementation of Plan 8 is conditional
to lir,,I, I fiixin of a pilot program indicating that dredged
4 .:O1t .ir i p r1'; t r ni;portod and dis posed of at sea.
t i., ,t ltc Pi 'lLi, I' Lx;L tt, ociraxie ;ilternative to sea dis-
h,,! II ( ,colx xi ,;II I id I ,.'i r,,lt int.lIv ) otl II ,' disposal in diked
. r,.I; I, i1.11,d IOl,,'v till Fl ar:Qx ; (il'l in f) )
. - ..
i -d 1 1rOM~ t. 1ie propo~sed
13m 1r. 1o W1, o f t ho d ra ft
t 1, L 17r I I), , i ih litV anld COSt Of
i k1T (AW -1 t' t 01 Ifinho r and re a d
.~ r i ) trOSe 0 01 thIis
A, r ~t I () I.o- on page 3 of the-
I it I I o,_I I t u Y a d L itreasons
t 1 1 SW t 111 01 j~g 4 othe
1 ( I :i -l t -;I~) ':; mm~ Char I e'StO T1
t up trk- iT rom the
m~i :,I I ;- i 'It It. m t. ide
I w 1 'ot I I - j rv,! ti on'045
inArrn ho
3. Commenit.: We also recommend re-evaluation of Plan 8 in light of
thle Final Regulat ions and Criteria fur Ocean Dumping published in
thle Federal Reister of October 15, 1973 (Volume 38, No. 198, Part
1l1). Te'sts;' should be made of materials to be dredged (as outlined
in Chapter 227,61) to determine whether spoil is polluted, in
accordance with thle new regulations. If such materials are found
to be pol luted, specilal at tent ion should be given to Chapter 227.64
which -;tates in part: "Polluted dredged material may be disposed
of in thle ocean if it can bi- shiown that the place, time, and conditions
I
of dumping are such as not to produce an unacceptable adverse impact
o the areas of thle marine environment cited in 227.60 (c). " '[le
proposed pilot study should determine whether this is feasible.
he sFne: A similar comment is discussed in response to comment S
number 2 of this letter. As discussed in the EIS, the only materials
which will be disposed of in the offshore area are those non-polluted
sediments to he removed from tie entrance channel by hopper dredge, as
recommended by the EPA in their letter of 29 November 1972. 0
t. C onlte: Chapter 4.03.1 should give a more complete description
(if vegetatiOn on thle upland sites and of the possible effect of salt-
water on this vegetation.
pofnisc: A eeneral description of vegetation on the upland sites has
been included in Sect ion 2.13 of this eTS. Also see repose to
comment 1 of this letter. As stated in Section 4 of this LS, upland
veh tition will be d es t roved in dis posal. areas.
Comment: Chapter 3.02 should incLUde a description of the upland
vegetatin offCted on the van ies sites. Th is should inc lude an
1 10v
* 3 S ~_sy S ,nrldsrpino veettin n h upan sie a *
F 0Z
A 1. LoI h' <it' i rc. itoLlir t han thle actLual d is posalI site
K i I I. ti il Ii , dr-i newa Laiing f rom thle s i te ,wi th
t s w t 1 . i '11 1 11 W -; t W ; :illd j)ro )L- rt y Val UeS in1 thle jarea. -
A j j 1 1 1 1 t i I i CU cse d ini res,,;p one t o c omme nt
Crret (iiaiptLer .0 8 shold re-e vaIua teL thle da ta outlIine-d.
I hi i ii Ics sairv becas olI-Cf t he new ocean d ump ing regu la t ions
rI~x e PA C i (1,11eeC I tis en-; t hat c er ta in sed imen ts are polIluted i s
E l i io ilid~ r:-; i(ou r le tt er of Novembe r 29 , 1972). a1,L r
._-T2 )015c A reeaIntion of the data presented in Sect ion 2.08
cI LIi i s i IlS Is not cons' 1 idered necessary since materials removed
* l h: i ine -r larhor w ill Ihe- di-- posed of in up land areas. Also
ccr,-.peoies, t.() -ommenit. 2 anid 3 of this- letter.
* (nio t K:il1( f1 i nd thuL Statement con tains discrepance s
is o tri I ttos ecardi g en th ic popul at ions , the effect of
lie preoe onl soc h popu I at ions , and recovery .
ol pi-.e 'I hiere irc no d isc repanec ies or contradicet ions regarding
I nt i ii po I)I 1 It ionMS.
lime 11 t It is; statedl (pa rag raph 4 .035. 1) that toxic sediments
I,1 V.' ci minted al II)enthlj(' organisms from the harbor
t At I ow lcve r 1) 1 ir;~ i_ h , 1) 11 t 2 sttes t ha t th11e sm othie r ing o f0
Witi aIt tie OCIanl disposal site will- he short-term as the destroyed
or 1' ll ;i i I 1w hercpl aced hiy recruli tment from surrounding areas."
a! it1 tii Hter ja is toxic, enouigh to eliinate Ieuthic
i i i. t i i arlir it t: Lo\ic i ty shoulId also prec lude repopu lat i in
d ill in the 1'.lS, materials, dredged from the harbor
* 0> viircilIc O l.warnpl 4 .0 1.(-1 (4.03. 5. I in the draft FAS)
Il IMP1
.: I ,.C d1 O- t 0 11 en upland areas of Daniel Island and not in
teo -,h r., dii La i rea. nly non-polluted materials removed
t,, ... n c h.nlle by hopper dredge will be placed in the _
Iit A, I> i, 1 , r . Ihere fore, the impacts presented in Section
S,.2)).n.2 et ti .IS rc correct.
W further suggest that if the channel bottoms are
Ac,,id o f cntici organisms, the discussion (paragraph 4.03.7.1)
.* rsi'sp onion of invertebrates into the water column at the dredged
,Ill disposal sites by ocean disposal operations is not relevant totI, i ; priccict. S •
, sni': .-\s ;st,ited in the response to the preceeding comment, the
In. i ,ot tomI5 that are devoid of benthic organisms are located
init ! 1,ort i of the harbor. The discussion referred to in 5 ]
, A . .7. 1 aipplies to the dredging of material from the outer
1', * .iid it,; (Icposition in the offshore disposal area.
:,.aa et: 'Pragraplh 4.03.7.4 says studies show that fish will -
HI ta. Il watcrs i possible. This, too, indicates that any
,..i : _ it the, L, posal site will be limited because of high turbidity.
iacvt ii,, it is indicated that the dredged material may increase the
, ,hii 1, n.j rnaraph 4.03.7.5 reveals that, although fish can tolerate •
,il ti rhitie,, they cannot do so when turbidity if; accomplished
f tI ili : I 1~tl .
,' lOtl -4.0)3.7.5 contains a general statement about the 0
i at r i o f- c.,rtiin water quality parameters insofar as they nor-
. I i ,. l . The EPA incorrectly states that this Section
- i t I i t i-h can not tolerate high turbidities in the presence
. :, , i -; -ect ion does not specificallv mention BOD. However,
i ': Q tih.l[ tile 11ovc comment is directed to the impacts of
i tlroihit i' in th oftshore disposal area. As discus. ed in
i l. i.1 whi h will be placed in tLhi, offshort area will be
. i .t r--i'l.c ch;ain. I ibv hopper dredge. Tlhese materials 0
I 12
S U U U U U U U 5°
i r- • I . I ied and cout ;lin otI v sia I Iluanti t ics of
I i i I-i Iml :1od viit. As a rel iIt, it is not anticipated
I.l ti r! ii it Is gc! r rI itd by tt. hopper dredge will hI - suf fir ient "
' T, i ! i, lnt !' i ce t i sili poptl at ion,-;
II. , FIlt Finlly I V , i S is noted that the peninsula of Charles ton
S rt -iil at-e prob leli, of tel great 1\ exceeding nat ional primary 0
t:rLird-, Ior im ilot a ir quality. Because oi this problem, we
I,' , :le I ;I. i r t lie f i ml I clvi ronmentatI impact s tatemient give assurance
tL iL CoUt ii t i ,,i, of dust will n ot accrue from transportat iion,
t>. q,,r~c -U i rave .or p rMinnent land storage of dredged ina terial. S
1'1Wit y A i r (IaI i t on the lCha r I es ton peni nsul a becomes a problem
, t lIi r i:- t empe rait ii r inversions. These inversions persist only
ic I .. ;pe-riods ft ]),w wind speed. In view of the considerable distance 0
I. r;. t 1, :,)per River, it is extremely unlikely that a wind of
t.ii,ient vtocLtv to carry dust from a disposal area on Daniels
5.- l~h 'old K) . insufficient to break up the inversion over the
p, Thn-ni a. Mlorris lsland is further yet from peninsular Charleston.
i -ri ior, , tl,'< ctredg in operation for the deepening project will
. -zi:ilar in all respects to the dredging requirement for the existing
p~in.'t-I, and tile exist ing project has never created any dust problems.
iS li~L t i probl en is in the nature of one having little or no .0
p- .b lit v o i ever materi alizing, it is not considered necessary to
,-ir,; in the IFS.
4 I;. , ;I:>: it In addi t ion, in paragraph 4.06, the types of pollutants
,, I ;Iio id )c idint if led, and the word "temporarv" should be
ri I 4, iInC' cO t intd maintenance and dredging wi IL be required.
U * .. ... : iii, pollutivnts referred to in this paraY r ,h ould be of
: t v-'it' ITIArI i'xp.-tei in ':<haut gases from BusI lfld aso inc .-
T V. -t-,l -: l i t i on en- in c o wh i ch a re use'd to pow'r thil dredge
n..ii t i~,,rt vc . Since the nunber of eniink, involved is very
* 6 i , -iv t ' Br. pip. ,,p' r.t inn is ron i l i nnI\ ' ovia;., it is Iig il
1li
* U U U U ,- ". U U
7 - ' l -l V -4-
.I
', . ' :tit P%,ill ht. mk,,i.murable at existing air quality
-tat C * <ir'.. r[' 'C i n. tot now nor will it become a permanent -.
' L.111 Ii 0. , , tl I' iiePAL - oLt air qialitV in any given lo- I - S
rI t Commrierce
* 0
-" I.I I r t klesekriipL ti
Ptoe~ 1)redged Mterial Quanti ties and Placement
- 1 :r. - Hi p irp i - not cle ar with respec t to
I.), 1t V t 1, 1 t, rtl rcqui red for diked upland disposal
t ~ 1k, t-'V l C 1,7 1 11 iv t' or- di.sposal of additional shoal
I -. J ',I, I - .I I'; I of harbor deepening. 'he
4!v Ii o i 1)Id ojo uif IV tI' location of thesLe areas.
I I 'rv:"IC't hi endiSCUSsed in response number 4
- i pjrt1icnt () ,nterfor.
i .:iv ,ut i' r t l _ t ii et i iri_ Without the P r c tc t
-i - - - - - - -+
, . Ikm -I ' i It H A ir c
Ir,1I I--,fd1 I I- the statement indicating
C p)um ,or 8 ,0)4 ,000 herring were harves-
:. 1 < A rit d these erring would be
til-V11lues be yenified.
:r i ,h irvkolt o hao been corrected in
-* .. t. , ' V., Iir 1 : 01 1!1)' l' the PripAc s ofihlsr a "th-'- - - -
: ...I, . i t ,q:' t t.% b '' iq : s e n r s o s u b r 4. .
t ' 't! 'F '" t~ ,' .> . t'~ lIt~l'l | t l- n te io r I 5
'. ,w,• U : U', U: v rU! ~~,1 .Sy ti5LVtL~ ?he Pres et
0o
Page 84. Tile location and description of the 49-acre upland
disposal site must be given before the impacts of maintenance
r: dredging can be predicted. We suggest that this section be .
readdressed after the disposal site has been selected.
Response: The project sponsor has indicated that the 49 acres
would be located on or northward of Daniel Island but cannot 0
make a definite committment on the exact location of these
areas until the project is authorized by Congress.
4. Comment: 4.10 Existing Projects
Page 85. Since the proposed project would have a favorable
cost-benefit ratio at a lesser depth without the Cooper River S
Rediversion Project, we recommend that this section be expanded to
consider the possibility and the consequences of not rediverting
the Cooper River. For example, if the Cooper River were not rediverted,
what depths would result in a favorable cost-benefit ratio for the S
Charleston Harbor project, and what would be the impact of the required
dredging on the quantity of dredged material and the area needed for
its disposal?
Response: If the Cooper River were not rediverted, tile deepening
project would have a favorable benefit/cost ratio at 38 feet instead
of 40 feet for Charleston Harbor and 35 feet instead of 38 feet in
Shipyard River. These major changes in depth result from the large S
quantity fo shoal material which would have to be removed annually.
In addition to the added expense of dredging, approximately twice as
many acres of disposal area would be required during the life of the
project.
Additional information on the dredging requirements of the Charleston
Harbor Deepening Project tinder a condition of no rediversion of the
Cooper River has been added to the EIS. S
113
0 _ S S S S S S S . - S
L .L ° r
U. S. Coa:st Gua rd
Comment: As requested in your letter of 24 September 1974, the 0
subject 1IS has been reviewed by this office and no conflicts
wi thin Coast Guard mission areas were noted.
Resonse: No response is required. 0
Advisorv Council on Historic Preservation
Comment: I'his is in response to your request of September 24, 1974,
tor comments on the envIronncntal statement for Charleston Harbor
Deepening Project, Charleston, South Carolina. Pursuant to its
responsibil ities under Section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
has determined that while you have discussed the historical, archi-
tectural, and archeological aspects related to the undertaking,
tie Advisory Council needs additional information to adequately
'valuarLe the effects on these cultural resources. Please furnish
additional data indicating:
Compliance with Executive Order 11593 of May 13, 1971.
a. 1n the case of land under the control or jurisdiction
o f the Fderal (;overnment, a statement should be made 0
as to whether or not the proposed undertaking will
rsut t in the transfer, sale, demolition, or substantial
a ItoratioI of poten(tial National Register properties.
1 , *u'h i the case, the nature of the effect should 5
e l .arliv md (-ate'd.
b. In te w e o, f I and s not under the control or jur is-
a1i i'tou Oil tel, Itd.rl Government, a statement shoul (I
, od,. ,:1 to, ,.et r or not the proposed undertaking
n ,it ri hut to the preservation and enhancement ,f
I Iw
* 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 5
4 -. 4
non-ode ra lIv (1.:;cd d is; trio t--, sites, buildings,
st rIc turcs , and A)t jects of historical, archeol o-
gicoii, arcitite, ttral , or cul tural signi ficance.
C. Wut are part ictl arkv concerned about the effect-,, of
dredging and d ispo i t ion of s;poilIs on archteological
resources-.
d. To i n-surc ai comp ron ivc rt-v i ow of I I istor ic a I,
cultuiral , archcoL ogirall , and o.rcittettral resource~s,
the1( Ad% i so r, C tine i I gg st t- ha t t. c ic nv i ronrie n t a I
5 ttvment conti ini cv idence 01 contact, with the appro-
priat, St Late iiLtri - Presecrvat ion Of f icer and t hat
a copy )f hi, conmnt.- concerninog the ef fects of the
Winde r- t iK It ol, poit these, resources ho( inc luded in the
eIV i ronmon t staL t ,~ iiit . [he S)taIte i Histor ic Preserva-
t ion ()liiCe r tor !SouLth Carolima is 'Ir. Charles; Lec,
Dli recLor, A rch ivs l epa r trncnt , IlL 30 Senat e S treet,
ColIumb ia, Sou t t Ca rolIi na 29211.I
C Rejr nse: a. The sug ,ges ted , ta t me nt hasL been i nc Iluded i n t h is E fS.
b. The sugges ted s t atemen t has been i nc Iluded i n th is 1 T
C. A s intl ar comment has, been discussed in response o
comments,- I and 8 in thte letter from the C. S. D~epart-
P7 mont of Interior.
d . The Draft [IS was coordinaited with the State Historic
Preservat ion Officer throught the State Clearingltousc-.
Commen ts, rceoived during this coordination will n0
4 included inl thlis [IS.
South Carol mna State Ports Authiori tv
C omme nt: The State Ports Authority expressed su~pport for the projlect
and provided in format ion on t ite importaonce of the project to the
Shippilog indus trv and on t he impact of the State Ports A\utho ri ty on
South Carolina's e conorow . ie v a Lsir god that thle project p roeed
on the has isf iioupadaes or the disposal of dredged materials-
but roecommended t i't t .''an tIirspitsa I be im,'p lemented as soon as osihc
Rpos:ThL orop;- pl r -t is; essent i-illv as, rt eommciwhdA1 tiit
S t ate P)or ts Al t nit itt-- !l i rt tier ~ rpes ~ i hir
1 V
W W W W W W W W W W 5
* 0
1 !ou COM.t YOU \oi) ol%~, Il( he abOVe i s fOCuIsed Oil impr1 lovemenC~ts Of
(haile 5 toil Li rhol 11and exiSt~ ill, F 41g Sifp chanllw s to aiccomimodaite Jeep-draift
W!s~ Ish i Ch Ie 10 1~r i et todaIyi w ith tile adopt ion o f con ta i niern za-
t I in. Modecrn treinis, cle art 1), i tid i cit c that the present 3-. -foot channelI
e('p t IIis- Io t IdIe.kI it e for a compet it xek port (ci ty Al t hou gh thi s
proj ec(t I!a;v he -L ust i Ci ed , thle problem of dredged mat en ai I s di-sposalI
i i tis cae iii i Io cub)ic vyards, is a; major factor to conlsider-
[h iI ev i, ti inc I I .' t c !it IN
oit ,, to 1 0 ' 0up tret' 11ICST 10l cod'te anSL Isar ne Salues studyunder ol
0 1 TL' 1t cI .c 1el f I t (d in th"Ie iI I I n ,eneialI , tile FITS pre~sen~t a-; N1
Lt~ p 1,oJ e,. dc, Icr i p t i oil a Ild tilie p roha hI c i mpact of thle proposed work
-icI I sHITIaa I- I .-ed Ill oar rexvi ew, we found several detaiils which shouild
*Coni:'i tt onl i aoat tei o t suggei os t ed( r ev is ion inii the1 f inal d raIft.
I non Nre oln s( 1 ru(1ll i red
mncv Nedo not necss riigree wi~th the recommendation on
t. :o>ictim 111 I d i :js iti t-rliit ixes. The disposal of materials at
1<~~~~~~ :~ i'otdsrbeI ! tcrilat i xe under all ci rcumstancesI
1 1!1 in !Ii 171,1 t) 1p~ 1),, i elcICted dIikhed aesWOld he far more
I ~~e tanoffsh Iore, disposal We feel relatively
* WK (11 :c l';i wonlId occur11 i f tox ic sediment s
I \ it clo K ~of the d ra ft IIS, the recommendat ion fo-
I H 4 rd' V Lt ~ rIiah1lwa 510it ted 1w thle Bulreaut of STort
K. C 12T if Scin t h , i JIcii(iII n 1 :c-tlok ecti u Th
*w w w a 0 a 4p 0 0 0 49 0
3. Conicnt Onl Pac-e 3, it it; stated that approximately 1,110
acres of dliked upl and disposal areaZ WOUld. he needed for the -
deepeni ug po oct e sugcst that the impact of di sposaIi
this area be clescri bed :17d the area he speci fi ed as to the seleocted
nature of the S iteC,. Vle canl only' assume it is onl Daniel Island,
but the"re is nio inlforilati on on type of 1mnb it at di splacemnent .
-1 :- I- A rl I I ar co;unentl lhas b~ceen di Sctissed inl responise'.
iflnt I~ tO c I e c h Ii . I), p Irt meui o f I i Ie r-i o r and
VC, 1%,11"" - C tn I cl Cr ,'I m the EnFv i~,:ei AO I'w C C 1 01
:. . I r e C) hc\ r C i cort Sre I ie l i bo .;It:;j ( 1 t en-
S 1' I re . 1~ or :1 j l 1e 1) 1i (,t 1 ii I !)o; 1 i S 11' cci
t1 kII c r \e i (on "h-I IuId Ic ) -Iu Ii l ledi. A Iso,
a a . a .*.a a ~ ac--s~i11 to exp] i Cat e I l1w "i t ill
i; k1r--- Ho SCl
K-. ~ ~ ~ l [::1I m I ll Ie .i c has enait See :t imn -1 . 1 0
K C O.eit fn 1Page- 97, I~frne7.0,'i and 2).0, offshioe di spos-l
cspecc1 a 11y of poll ut ed hot toln sod ilmont s con]ld have long-turn effects
Oil Cc Ft 11in types of bottoms such a-s natural reefs, s'2:a bass banks,
c-I C . II here' effect s coulId he mlec Sen Ol'c; tban11 in an ;1Id i s I Oal o
rw.].at i ve" Iv ha ren arVa ,:efre that1 tim ;t:ItemenTts unc&e7A1
and1, '1. (31a r to I( enr i incomparingo the potenlt in] effects of Off-
shoreL %ersus1' il a iland di ,)Spos 1
Secti on7 0.3, t---hi ch con tni us spec if ic referenceo to the
di spO.;] 1 plan11 that prov j dedJ fo01 th 1COff.shore dli Sp)osa 1 of all cirotiged
mait en a I has boen rev, sod t. o i nd ic atIe thamt t h i s 1)1ain , oil d have,
adverse effects, onl the Offshore hiota. Secti on 8.0 is a di sclussioll
117h
of the irreversiblc and irretrievable commitments of resources that
would be requirei of the recommended plan. The recommended plan pro-
vides for offshore disposal of only that material dredged from the
outer harbor, and this hais been clarifie-O in tills section. Mo,,re
detailed disciissioin in Section 7 and 8 would he repetitious of materialin Sections; I and S. 0
(U.>. : ;%;)p, id i 1 A cup c h n t e i V(: I si i Ii. of N is , 2 s
(etc., is prnjcc !, c W. r i vY olter (Jut ia eCNl( ic i afn] nle c
, . ,1 'lokl 1 ,he ;IJhdd d to I ho Iist. 'I h . i I'.c v( et11, I v'
I. i . ' Ic 'I: VI, l I ) 1) oa) lcm d to i ;c llk! . I lic ik c .'(
,;' r 1 , I' 0
it ,' i e '' i " :i f. .. i .%lr:I p 1l. ! l -I( cL, t I' Iic: t;!i
.V li " , , ;i di > .LVs s : a. .\pp-;;,; ix V1 aI-( no l i ic I4,cd in
'.11;' 1,-_ c k "t' , to I 1 : d , l : IS InI ('s" 0 I r0 " I'c ' I.i-,I : ' re
sU ntsccld dcrinI; cc' di" i'. of the cid l F iS. "1i e : iti - and Lor--
i ctl i N:-' cli. Led abocve ha'e hKen n)lid (, iiowevur, they 'are not cOns i der'C
to he si g in ,i cVt .nplig to w rrianl the inclusion of aI rvS ised Appendix -
P, in this revised draft k1S.
7. Conc : PN;v 93, plan P2 - Although hopper dredge material dumped
In 10] t. ol ffhoi c -icp,,,:cl& :acrc has not been found to ihave adverse effects
on the dumping a rea, it should be pointed out that most of the silt and
fine materials of tio ha ribor bottom are not retained by the hopper dredge
and go back ovcrbo: rd on site. Ile effects of this material, especially
if in areas w.here toxic sediments occur, could lie significant. The fact
that material in the uppo, larboc, as pointed out, is of a finer nature
than in the area now dredged, magnifies this problem rather than reduces
117c 0
it as implied here. Our observations indicate that a signi ficant
percentage of th,. dredged materials are stirred up by the action I -. -
of the dredge and rather than being retained in the hopper, are
merely pumped hack overboard causing turbid conditions. The
resulting turbidity probably has as much effect on the marine
hiota as deposition of these materials on the dumping grounds.
The fate of resulting tuirbid masses depends on prevailing wi ids
arid currents Thus, such turbid conditions could become problema -
ticAl during seasonail runs of postlarval shrimp and fish.
Response: This part of the revised draft EAS has been revised to
shot, that the biological productivity of the offshore arej Could
be reduced if polluted sediments from the inner ha rbor are deposit (,d
there.
1 7
*1* U U U U U U U U U U U
-.-ii: n : i i i e - yo l, - . - - _
South C irol in l I-o'tri- - d a,;C-i ::
Comment 'ics, r'narkn add re-s t he lOrai .t i:1 i ronmIent al St itinitelt
ol the Charltstun Hlarbor Oeepening Projc issueCd Septcimb r 197.
Pag 42, paragraph 1.I).i , the .siicv Riv'r Section. 'tou ha,
t te1id on r P1a L ili'd
uhl,. 7, Page 12'), Mnad.Ir ierK lev Count%, and pararaph 2. 10.5,
ige 1, th. 0S,750,00() gal loaS per dav aOhl d b l62 931,0(1)
.I lons per day of cool in and 2,000,000 gal ins per da" ash
, L. wate'r.
, 9, Page I31 , (harleston County, P1on t Hlagood (see our
;u:Ir'. iraphu I above) :should be 67.82 mil lion gallons per day and
th. type treatment shoulm( he cooling water and plant procues water.
4 pp e ,. ['ic, suggested corrections have been made in thi s final
It liev rs ". .
A total Of )0 let ters (listed below) were received from interested
individua 1- , and various Cong res sional, business, and shipping
inter i's. All e:pressed support for the proposed project. Because
,I the ir ;i;I arit. i n di vidka I responsi's were not prepared for these
ICtt r> . All l tterS OF CO' memmnt riceived are attached as ,\ipendix B
l<tOriti L~ li'- i".. Lin Ii, ' . S. tloUs' Of Reprenicntat ives
I:t rat I elC Idc '1. 1) 1 : n ,ri-.I I d, S t itL. o f South Carolina Rep resentat i v,
to i -Ile :it,:i '. IKI.nd., t of r . L Lu th Carol I a , Senator
1o!nr,ilt IJarri> P'. S'it 5, .L itt, - South Cairolina Senator
r ) < .. ', aal r; 1,Jr, 11 ,,..> r - t. i f So th Ctolin e present t Live
ri,; iV. Or,-, . Jr., rJaIr, i , C I rortl C hii iton
.. ,PS0
o,-L . ..
S. . . . . . : . . . . . . ... ""r4 "- - - -- -- - - - - -
Mr. Frank R. SaddlCr, Airco .\lloys and Carbide
Mr. S. Caruso, Amertux Steel Products Corporation
Mr. (;erald L. ZuIli, Amobelge Shipping Corporation
Mr. W. F. Wi Lson , Associated Container Corporation(USA)
'lr. L . N. Bagal , B Igna I lumber Company
Mr. Herman B. Little, BowITman11 Transportat ion, Inc.
Mr. E. S. Braswell, Braswel I Shipyards, Inc.
Nr. E. ',. Olson, Carol ina Li ,tman Company
MIr. E. Randall Swan, Jr., Charleston Branch Pilots' Association
Mr. l'homas L. Ihornhi l, Charleston Oil Company
Mr. Neil McCaskill, Jr., Coastal Forwarders 4
Mr. W. W. Williams,Jr., Coastal Steel Forwarders
Mr. John 1B. Ha rdwick, Commercial Bonded Warehouse, Inc.
Mr. R. A. :,il Icr, Crvovac
AF. Currie B. SpiVV, Jr., Dlaiel Construction Company
,'r. >ichael A. (;alasso, Del M\onte Terminal
Ar. Richard P. Coon, F. I . Du Pont De Nemours & Company
rI. \. A. llaieCock, l:%,xon Company, 1'. S. A.
.I . >1. 1ussel I, General Electric
MIr. Cl eve land S. Hairley. llarlicy Corporat ion -.79r. P. IF. ,,r.ster, Hoest Fibers Incorporated -
'I. .John A. M1cPlierson , Jr. , LBC&W Industrial
.r. H. '.I. ong, Leigh Text lie Company
Mr. F. S. Corbin, Lift li c i)oors, Inc.
-Ir. 'T A. Fridv, Jr., Lockwood Greene Engineers, Inc.
Mr. S. Fox, ihe a'lritime As.socjation of the Port of Charleston
.r. ,ick 'It irt hv, (;rceiiv i I ,I S. C
"I. trhc .r I. Rocli , L%wtot International Corporat ion-
-r. C %. 1 .\nd, r,;n, 1 ,/L'( r it , Transportgation Company
I 1. la e-; Ii. imb , PLi I:,'t t Sh i ipp i i and Ste v dor i ng Co. , ic.
lrs. Ci rl tit. r-, li Ilt C lub of Chairlcston, South Carolina, Inc.
r. >1 ic ii, I 1 o 1. ) m v ) ri 'lap -r (o rpo rat i on
i-. V, i I,.r ,t F') I Im I-r 1)1 V isi on
'I . S.. :1.. 1, n C, 1"!),I.1),r. I ( r r it i 0 1
'*t. I }. .hlt, , . :-.ml r '(:(iat Line Rn i 1 road Company
o , , ' i ;, - i I l ' a RI ma'.
II a
* U U U UU U U U U
* -S
Mr. Charles J. Arocha, South Atlantic Terminals, Inc.
Mr. John H. Lumpkin, South Carolina National Bank
Mr. S. Fox, Southeastern Maritime Co. .
'Mr. Timothy S. Street, Street Brothers, Inc.
Mr. William Lowndes, I[I, Tindall Concrete Products, Inc.
Mr. Calvin H. Reed, Utica Tool Company, Inc.
Mr. Robert E. Whiteside, Wilbur Smith and Associates •
Mr. E. W. Waring, White Stack Towing Corporation . -
9.05 Coordination of revised draft EIS.
U. S. Department of Commerce
Response: There are no planned activities which will disturb 5
or destroy any of the tidal bench marks located in the project
area.
U. S. Department of the Interior
No response is required.
U. S. Coast Guard, U. S. D. T.
No response is required.
Environmental Protection Agency -.
1. Response: The provision of disposal areas for the proposed - 7
project wi I be the responsibility of the project sponsor, the
State of South Carolina. The project sponsor has indicated that 0
it would be desirable from his position to locate the upland dis-
posal areas on and northward of Daniel Island. Although the exact
location of these disposal areas will not be known until the post-
;iuthoriza tion stages of pl,nning, a description of those areas
used for cost estimates is presented in Section 2.13 of this EIS
and the impacts are disc'us ed in Section 4.03.
S2 . Resf)ns . The prescnt diked disposal i areas on Daniel and Morris
I sl. hani] wil l not heI expanXdd to include new marsh areas when they
,re filled to (".I 1; itv. As discussed in several places in the EIS
(Stt ions 1 .0+, . disposal areas to be utilized for the
00
1 2) .
* 5 • 5 0
iJ I Ii 1 . Lil tiC :1[)1<l itv, 11W $ tcs will i e SmI~ghllt
t r- if, rbi 51 .tr t i v, iotliir than tar sh-
1~. c n i n vi v2w, !w I, i gh prsm imLil
i de rt.,,! un L , t .t. c
4A- 1, 1- L;Lii 1 h uW 2L :f1(jIf elicmnol ex ist infg a reUa1s
iv ~ ~ ~ ~ 1V 'wv aa aba iv t beCen tested
Ift ta 2.. i ii(i m w ltt'r of :lt iiv~ () the
ii. i <rance, on ai' if)" rae. Suil ivians
;iI ii 1Lii !()r ace-.iii din;posan However,
if (' I, fto IcLI I 11 it li t
J ir
6 ii..ii rI is I vii ,hlt i i 'v ion ire
*) S
m.,SP O O I k i '- i i L e s in 11 L Sp I I I-ekac is
greaItl ily In l'IICnood 1) 1o 1 L bIIV iCAI C I IarI.r toL'I-i t io C f ~ i w t11i nj
thle d is po sa Iairea .Wiin d i psaI A roan VC have LI SOe sI CC L ed, t he
Iepartmont ol 1- I it I) anmul omot Colnt.1rl w il b e COnSUlted
abhOLut meo intl F- I 'lklk t !:h'LyI i t1) P1 tOd)t iti
S .* W i LIl I if It andl Ma r itno Rc sot; ir; e Departent
R e jo n sc-: Qumnt i t at ive prod 1 i Lt ion.s on dec rcaseL- sed intent at ion rates I
With a rid W i Lthen t *r pr e) no10 td depe ingP p11, 1)rej cot- havu beeni added to
TabhIe Iot 1 1 ti s 1 S.
LIST OF REFERENCES
1. Colquhoun, D. J., 1972. Charleston Harbor, South Carolina,estuarine values study. Contract DACW60-71-C-0007. Dept.of Geology, University of South Carolina, October 31, 1972.
2. Richards, H. G., D. J. Colquhoun, and R. L. Blanchard, 1971.Pleistocene mollusks from boreholes in South Carolina.Notulae Naturae of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Phila-delphia, No. 445.
3. Bond, T., D. Chapell, and D. J. Colcuhoun, 1969. The con-tinental submerged cycle of sedimentation through examinationof the Santee Sangamon submergence. Geol. Soc. Amer., Abstractswith programs, 4.
4. Malde, Harold E., 1959. Geology of the Charleston phosphatearea, South Carolina. U. S. Geological Survey Bulletin Num-ber 1079.
5. Cooke, C. Wythe, 1936. Geology of the coastal plain of South
Carolina. U. S. Geological Survey, Bulletin Number 867.
6. Gibson, Henry E., 1974. Charleston area sediment samples, Janu-ary 2, 1973. S. C. Pollution Control Authority, In: CoooerRiver Environmental Study, Report No. 117, Frank P. Nelson,Editor, April, 1974.
7. Gardner, R. A. and P. W. Johnson, 1973. Water supply evalu-ation and proposed comprehensive study of the Charleston-BushyPark industrial complex, South Carolina. U. S. GeologicalSurvey. In: Cooer River Environmental Study, Report No. 117, 0Frank P. Nelson, Editor, April, 1974.
8. Anonvmous,1966. A report on the water quality of CharlestonHarbor and the effects thereon of the proposed Cooper Riverrediversion, Federal Water Pollution Control Administration,Southeast Water Laboratory. In: Appendix F, Survey Reporton Cooper River, S. C., U. S. Army Engineer District, Charles-ton; July, 1966.
9. Anonvmous, 1972. Stream classification for the State ofSouth Carolina. South Carolina Pollution Control Authority.
10. Anonymous, 1973. Water nualitv portion of the Cooper River 0
environmental studv. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,Surveillance and Analysis Division. In: Cooper Piver Environ-mental Study, Report No. 117, Frank P. Nelson, Editor, April,1974.
121
S S S S S S S S S S S S S S 5
11. Anonymous, 1973. Wando River environmental quality studies,an interim report. S. C. Water Resources Comm. April, 1973.
1 12. Anonvmous, 1972. A study of the Charleston flarbor estuary
with special reference to deposition of dredged sediments.
South Carolina Marine Resources Dept., Contract No.DACW60-71-C-0014. December, 1972.
13. Lunz, G. R., 1967. Unpublished report to S. C. Water Res.II C~omm. •
14. Lunz, G. R., 1968. Farming the salt marshes - Proceed. Marshand Estuary 'Mg't. Symp., LSIJ, Baton Rouge, La., pg. 172-177.
15. Odum, E. P. and A. A. de la Cruz, 1967. Particulate organicdetritus in a Georgia salt marsh estuarine ecosystem. In:Estuaries. Lauff (ed) AAAS Publ. No. 53. pp. 383-388.
16. Teal, J. '., 1962. Energy flow in the salt marsh ecosvstemof Georgia. Ecology 43(4): 614-624.
4 17. Smalley, A. E., 1959. The growth cycle of Spartina and its •
relation to the insect population in the marsh. Proc. Salt
Mlarsh Conf., Mar. Inst., Univ. of Ga., Sapelo Island, Ga.,pg. 96-100.
18. Pomeroy, L. R., 1959. Algae productivity in salt marshes
of Georgia. Limnol. Oceanogr. 4(4)" 386-398. S
19. Wass, M. L. and T. 1). Wright, 1969. Coastal wetlands ofVirginia. Spec. Report in Applied MIarine Science & OceanEngineering. VIMS. pg. 1-149.
20. Williams, R. B., 1969. The potential importance of
Spartina alternifLora in conveying zinc, manganese and
iron into estuarine flood chains. in: Proc. Second Symposium
on Radioecology. (D.J. Nelson and F.C. Evans, eds.) U. S.
Atomic Energv Co>mm., RID 4500.
21. Marshall, ). E., 1970. Characteristics of Spartina marsh4 which is receiving treated municipal sewage wastes. Ann.
report 1969-70 to Nat. Sci. Found., Sea Grants Proj. Div.pgs. 317-359.
22. Shaw, S. P. and L. G. Fredine, 1956. Wetlands of the UnitedStates. 1'. S. Fish Uildlife Serv. Circ. 39. pg. 1-67.
23. Anonymous. Threatened Wildlife of the United States. USDI,Bur. Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, Office of Endangered
Spec es and Inteirna.t ona I Act ivities. Res. Pub. No. 114, 1973.
24. Anonvmous, 1964. iliolo.ical -;tudies of Charleston 1arbor,
,S. C., Bear. fluff [ahoratorit-,,, Isdmala , Island, S. C. •
Lt l_
* 6 6 S S S _-. ,
tirt Ls I. iii 5 A., .'A i tl solr~o 'V 0 tiu h it alld
Coo0pr L, 1 r L Rvr s io * soc t.. -3--3. Annual Pro00 res -ftnfor I Ic Il 1 '172 rnch. n 30, 1973. .. ilif11"fd ' i tit
26. T irner, i II ii i ! 'id ki r t lol1 ioson, 19 7 4. S t ani lin,(,
c r o s ( , Wi 'c LtaTNS Of the lowe'r CooperiRv er ss ~tem !: ivtr Eioiironrniental Stud.x , S..r. 8ter '~'or~.17, Koo I (lsn, 12 toy-,
27. B i e Bci it .-. La' I ll n,-, L 1. itLte, 19 73. 1)io a s sas t td i esCk Ii. r to' C. t ii lr Sou th Ca roclIinzi , thIie ef f e t s o fdrodo tn,, 11, irhlo :; edi; orl &I'm. Loll. Final renoi-t submittedlto Lte Unl t todl Stojr 1' ,urns of Foineers. Charleston District.Vn i x'rs itv lf 51! ''roi ilia, (o m Co n tractL No .
)ACIk 60-7 1 _(,_o)fl5 i r 973.
28. hcspeoho il 1, ho ra Lorv , 1970. ros ss k ohs ical andbiolcgIcaI ct et of 1''ror spoil (disposal in upperClhcs 1pak i;;io 1 ,port Loe !'.. Breau of SrortFishe:rit-s :ovi i 1,: 1i uc Ititfiact 14-16-0005-2096). !,f * No. 70-3.
Smmh c tI o i IK hil n IiS co in v report in the order ofpresenta tion v.crc, at-o,1~Cron in, L.. FK. Ii5tr, concluisions, and recorrienclations. 15 p .
Pigs . B ., (Y-o lox:, aod l'roof.Projlect A. Ref. No. 69-23.'36 P). 6
I-I ml- r I P on xtoloktoll. Pro iect Bi. RZef. No. 69-15. 15 p.P1 iu~"' r i 11 V ntllos. Pro crt C,.1,' ef. No . 69-130 . 30 p
od w 1 , rn , ()(1) aoll'ktoil. 1'roecrt D. Ref. No. 69-128. 9 p.
29. slierk- J. Alh-ot 1 r . P71. Thie effec ts of suspended anddtepoc c ted Ltcclii 'rnt- on estuar inc, organicsms. Chiesapeake Biol.Lab . 00' r i 1 '143 3 3 .
3T). Ma , ',i v i, r 1 '. ,rgio a e LII f c ct., o f Ihyd(Ir a uIi cd red'i I i-di r .oru I I-ll.9 1 -85 .
31.~ ivd rau 1 , c1 d4 rf edd nil is i nus o n
t00 70 112 efects of
J1 u; r i o r - , a''ll i !;-I
1 1. I - i''-- bo I , 1973.
* 0
* 1P 1P 0
4- 0
34. Smith, Ronald F., Albert Ii. Sv.artz, and William iI. Massmann,1966. A swmposium on estuarine fisheries, Arier. Fi sh . Soc.Spec. Publ. 3.
35. Sykes, lamnes F. , 1)68. Co nercial values of estuarineg enerated fisheries on the Iouth Atlantic and Gulf of N e:xicocoast. In: J. 1. Newsom (Editor), Proc. Marsh and Estuary
anagement Syumposium. T. .1. Moran's Sons, Inc., Baton Rouge,
- . ".
I S!
*I 0
.0
4
4Pl6l 0 op l
* S S S S S S S S S]
0 ~~ ~ P 0 L N A__ _ _ _ _ _ _
F k- Nn
Af**i ot PA
F Ar"N MAP
RECOMMENDJ PLA
RFPRODIJ(-Ft) AT (7,(VIFFlT Fl(PrNSE
SLAND
CoopINSTRT "A"
LEGASNN
INETIAE CHANNEL EXA"IO
RECOMMENDED CHANNEL ELEPEN
-WANDO
HO0G ISLAND
\ \ RECOMMENDED ENO ASINI]
D AN I EL A" R.C '
'ISLAND
NROMMENED f
REPRODUC1D Ar' R;K , F!.LNT F)(P~t.3E
7S
REOMENE PLANNPla of im rv m nItrm Pa
Depe eisin pojctto40 Depe eisin pojctOz to3fee ad wde bsin ad fetan wienbasnsan
'it n s s s ho- bas cannlsstssho nbasd ini,
RECOMMENDE PLANEPlan f lmpr~esnen Intrim lon
Deepn aas,,n proest o epneitigpottfoo an wien asis n eladwdnbsn n
%Aji !RLEASAN
ANNELA rI1ENSIL
DEFENSE
A NCHORAGE
) JLAND 4
JAMES
ISLAND
L
0 A A
C H R LE S 0 NCHARLESTON HARBORCHARLESTON SOUTH CAROLINA
* "ME010 ENLARGEMENT TO PAROVIDE 120 DOO TUEN 0IME ENTRANCE CHANNEL TO
SHIPYARD RIVERCHIARLESTON DISTfICT. CORPS OF ENGINEERS
*R 11 R74 FIGURE 2
II
U
U
S
0
S
S
0
0
REPRODUCED AT GOVERNK'cNT EXPENSE
0r
NOT HALSO.TRIA
RECMME
He OfIpovmn
Depneisigpojc o4
fet..'id.bNi, -chnnl jjshwjaedoth m lme tto o h
'C o e ierRdvrio rjc
NORTH CHARLETN TERIA
REOMENEDWIENNGTO50 ET MENOnRTHapro~nn
C' ARDepn LEtngprjctto4
SE INSER -B-
RECOMMEMMEDEE WIDENIG Ta 100 FEE
REPRODUJCED AT MO E?7MENT IFXPENSE
RIVER
4. 40 J §
_E FEET
L L J __ INSERT "B"
RECOMMENDED PLANPlan of Imronemt interim Plan
*n o.tg prole't to 40 Deep.n, stn p-mat to 38S ted w den bastns and feet and widen basis and
-. 1el s "S.own based on citonnefI as sh-w, b a'ed an 11,-plewu.. of the delay of iwpfe..nttmon of the 0
sso s Pd---~asPsjs Cooper Ri v R.d-or, an Isoject
44
*Z.i
(LEGE-
RECOMMENDED CHANNEL DEEPENING- INVESTIGATED CHANNEL EXTENSION
~ RECOMMENDED DEAIJTHORIZATION CHARLESTON HARBOR
NAVY CHANNEL CHARLESTON. SOUTH CAROLINA
C~lthIOMRECOMMENDED CHANNEL ENLARGEMENTSHIPYARD RIVER TO GOOSE CREEK
CHARLESTOR DISTRICT. CORPS OP ENGINEERS
R~l FIGURE 3
tAS.
TO[ TEE 4
AS ... ... ".
if•
All.
MA
QSPLA E E N
~t li Nowl USED~ lil
A-kI
£ ii~ ., - -
I - ti lMW US"
'- - LILACo Il W ull.I
LOC, ATE M0L NE~ F N
.CHARLESTON HARBOR
/ DISPOSAL AREAS
28
NN WE NN ME Is ME Is IN U U U V
0
-~ ALc<
~~V,
F ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ -I L .KRLTSL RCA I HRETxHRO EIE
129S
4 "' TERSECTO O BSS. PARK
/ -- 211 (le t.S-
StSflr~~ EAR GZ TH NE
PETRO DREDGE SAPE130 SC) IsWW
* YI>PE0w w lp lp
PortTerminal
Ir
0-0
L-
CL
00
\~ X iO~> uO'VRRIViIR ANi) CLOVTLRCR1-i-h~ iiOTTONI
* * N> i.IIhNT SAMPLE LOCATIO)NS
SCALEARQS
*-q I6 II a 0 qU Il le w Il 0
':~..
*.5,
~..
I
*
~.' ,...
I
iL~
F"
-':2
*
.)
~
.
*
.... .
-, i-I
--
.. .
-
C~
6.9.
.--.
~IL
S
~4a.
C
-
.v -
-
0
~
--
*
7 -
-~
iN r
*
S4.
I
.- ~7"*~
r
is
I
S'4
* S
S S
S S
S S
S S
S S
S S
U V
U
I'S
k 40
I C F Tl 01C',-
7rI
-lP op La- -
-- 19'
A-18
A.A
* LI - -7
,-. . \
- 0..-
0
I A. I-,---, / ,0_
*'\ 0-
-- % •
zr - -
~.. "S,.
":,.:. -,-
o ... "" "- -- " - - " L'" p -
.'4, .. p. 0
" - -a - _-- sa
. -- - :--. - ...,- ~ K ~
- -- -N D
( ,'-
-2/' , . ----- V / -_ ..
(' i - "
- @ • • • • r• • •r • O •
-- - --- - - - --
R~r C,
100
MW'-~ uzzad-Ruo o
-:-10 - ,C3~~~~Tr a, - - -
0
M4AP S SJ 1i Hc r< -oR r:
-110-0, 'MLXE -TCAT CN
aid dpA
~40#
A, 'I0
4'.i '-r At I~.
- o
C~p nrA~-
C.,~
we~ A * -- - - - ~ 4 9
N 4'~~ .~ - 13
- - - AN -.4- -F
\-O .1A1 B 20Ef
4p4 - __p
......~ ~.. ... +- :
-%.h £.+'.,.
" .... C"+' +"+. + >1 I..
'C- / ; -.+ : ' ./ '< S7 ' .,.£,.( ]44-- /
I"- / " - / -.
A z 0,, ) .. - . .
/ . .
- r I '"1 "
<"" u' 6 4
'.' *< "+ ": +. * S
+_ .,. l j ~ , p / k Z . .. _
* 6" "" S S :- 1
I 7T.... , ,1
....2 j
II 0
SOUND
I''--Z 9 0.~o -C-"' -
top,
. ." '-.S " 0 0 S .0Y 0
' L,: , , - - ./ , :I-, /
T. Y
99 5
3S
aBANK ROAD 3*73"
c N
BOAT RAMP-
* 1 MILE
00, '0
' 'ARSTUDYTAREA
f TQP1 SFA~. - 7.Pv RIVER L D.GCPSTiS
'A C) C) C C C CD C) C C C D CD C c c c C4-1 C C C C CC C= ( = C) C C = C c C) C Cu C C c - '3 (N14 0 I t, 10 0 '3ID C Cc 0 o
-4u0 CD N C7 r C7 C r: C C c cc j 0 N cc C N c -Q)C) rn If) - 0 ( ) N-'nN t) z '
C) r-
Q) 0 t) C C) C C CD 0 c CD C) C C) C C C c C CC)O0
14 C C) C) C= C C C C) C CD C CD C c CD C C
(4~-4U C C C C) 0 3 *- T~ rn tO ) C 10 tn C 10 rl Ccc 00
r-CC C CO '3 C, :IC-0 N C) t C C 3-,1- (N rn to C ) c N 't C m) r, cc cc C z3 'r '3
z ~ '3 c If) VN ) - 0 c ' -4 (N4 CD (NA - -4 Ln. 1
C4 -
44 . ~ C c C CD C Cz CD c C C C C CD CD CD Lo CD C CD C LU C C CD C C C- C C CD C C c) c) c) t C C C C) ( C4
Co C) C 3 ) C CD c) -' m) C -0) CD - ~$C) C f- C N- 30 00 t cc00 -4 cc 00 M n 10 Ccc 00 cc -r- M
- '. 0 1 4( C04 N I' N ( N-i '3 En LO t
C) 0' (Nl CD CD '-D C) C - C )
C) ~ C C C C C C C C C C C C C) C) C CD C ) 0 CL"4 C C) C C Cr C C f C ) C .C 0 C 0 C 0 C0 C C0 C C C044 C C, C= t' I 0 -0 3 c c c C ' O
cc0 c C '3 C C) 3 0N CO 1 j (N 10 0 4 (N C -N 0 CLf co CO -un C C1Il T~ 00 c C 0'. GO cc 7z to In cc '3q \ 3 \C 0 0 e1 3r C
U'. C C 0 0 0 0 C C C 0 C C 0 C
-4 ti- C C C: N cc 1T X 3 0 3o -(N qT C CC C C CC Zu CC CD t0 'IT 0D C- N- cc 00 '3D N C C C C CC
CC N) C r'-N - C-- C '3 C tO '- CD C- to CD C 0CCZ- 10 10 - 10 (N) N, - 0 - (N ( 0 -4 C '
-- 4 CD .
7- 010 _x^l 0 - I 11 C 17 N-- 4 ,!- t- : C nC) r
C) u
CC
4~~~~~~ ~ -- -' -t - - - - - -c - -o c C C N C Cc
-71 cc Cl N - 3 0 - (N C N -4 N C>< 1010 -
C0 C3C)0
C0 0l 0* . 00~ 00
0 C) 0: 0
0. 0000
0 00
c~ ~ ~ 000 o0
0-0000
. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - S .. 9 .:C 9 (
~C-.o'-0lC). -DC 0C
-r ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ CO '20 cc C-70 0 0 c 00 0C O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000
C- C: =1 0 0 0 C 0 CDZ)0 C) C DC) 00 0 00 0 0 00 00oo0 00 00 00 00 0 0
OCC:,~ 5 oo o ooocoo oo ooocco oooooc '',C,** ;*oooooocoo
7' f4L
0 C) C C7 0 0' 00 00 CC ' CC 00 00 00 0 0 0
C
02 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0CD0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 C
C' 000CD0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0
CDS
C- pctI '.CC,.CICC CDNN(N U7
. . . . .. C. C.. .. C' . .-C '4 . . . . . ..J
C.:, " 01 , "
,:'.~C~ flC. CNN r.'. C' .,0 -'T
-'u u( ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 'A - 0 02C00000000000000000
I
-arbor Sediments Analysis, Aug. 1972 ( S.C. Pollution Cor.i Aut IL
Volatile Solid COD TKN GREASE PB ZN HG % Total
Station 600' Dry Dry Dry Wet Wet Dry Solids
Ashley Rivef % Dry Mg/Kg
A13C 7.2 73800 1360 3370 20.4 43.9 .48 60.0A19A 12.2 86600 1720 1130 23.8 30.6 .39 37.1A198 7.1 44000 1370 1960 39.2 77.6 .35 52.8A19L MAR. 13.4 108000 1790 3510 17.0 28.3 .33 48.4A20B 4,7 40200 730 830 47.6 11.8 .28 65.8A21A 7.2 93000 1600 1990 44.6 74.0 - 52.9A21B 18.1 23300 700 590 ND1 27.6 .16 80.0
* A3A 10.8 107900 1990 1580 28.7 2.9 .81 48.0A38 12.1 73500 1440 830 43.3 47.6 1.02 49.0 ) 0ASB 14.4 126900 4440 3900 39.6 43.5 .73 39.8A7R MAR. 12.7 129200 1440 11019 46.8 63.1 1.08 37.0A9A 13.5 103000 2048 1890 52.1 241.8 1.20 39.6A9B 2.75 40200 730 450 30.7 69.9 .24 74.2A9C 11.5 100000 2680 1220 31.9 36.1 .42 46.8AII8 10.9 111000 4030 2160 42.8 62.4 .39 51.7AlIC 13.4 108900 2090 1120 46.4 75.9 .75 41.3A13B 8.58 66100 1800 1220 31.6 38.9 .19 51.4A1BA 15.5 149400 1290 2840 42.3 46.3 .44 38.5A78C 145 14000 1740 301 19.8 18.5 .93 76.3A19 R MAR. 13,2 122000 1790 2120 25.2 6.0 13.2 42.0A20C 1.61 23000 930 4240 21.3 22.3 .14 76.3SA13A 6.6 58300 1050 820 27.5 27.0 .15 76.0A7C 7.3 32300 590 1140 13.6 17.5 .23 72.3A19C 8.8 73300 2240 900 25.6 19.8 .23 50.7101 B 17.1 140800 1070 670 31.7 25,0 .34 76.0103 B 8.5 100000 1490 540 42.5 149 .68 50.6
102A 12.6 60200 2700 490 60.4 88.1 1.12 57.3A21C 12.4 66000 590 690 18.8 17.8 .58 85.0A13 8 0.4 37000 690 1010 23.2 46.0 .38 83.1A20A 9.5 54600 1090 550 22.1 36.2 .09 69.7102 C 12.2 92000 2080 2230 35.8 47.2 -2 61.5101 A 10.2 70300 1970 3220 -- 53.8 .15 58.0103 C 8.3 83600 1630 2990 24.3 41.0 .24 55.9101 C 9.8 110300 2500 3690 91.1 39.4 .72 58.5 I 0
A 3C 2.8 46000 830 330 21.5 57.0 .33 72.9A5A 5.3 49700 1330 2870 40.5 41.3 .33 65.5A 5C 8.0 106000 1360 1930 24.3 13.6 .23 59.5A 7A 11.6 115000 3100 11700 45.9 74.1 .50 44.3
A 78 2.7 26800 609 1190 19.9 10.7 .10 77.4A 71. MAR. 5.8 70700 1820 1250 17.0 28.3 .43 60.0AlIA 10.2 109000 2460 10000 43.0 72.3 .24 49.9
Average (Ashley) 9.32 79270 1682 2288 32.7 45.8 .45 59.0
10I
143 ..
0 .-.0 0 0 0 0 0 0_
\'u1'l - 'Lkj'li: .'2 ) TKN JRLASL PB ZN I3( K Total
r\r .1 Kg NM Kg Mg Kg Mg Kg Mg Kg MgKg Solids
"tatlor8 600 ° Dry Dr, Dry Wet Wet Dry
(Qmper River
c L'2 2U.7 27300 -,10 720 33.7 39.8 .54 87.9CLM3 7.1 1it,4 I3U40 602 32.2 43.1 .34 37.4
I I.I 16511188 (50 .347) 28.6 32.1 .23 57.4.37 3O (19 5810 20.9 7.' .34 68.b
(1 43000 8 2) 570 19.1 9.9 .15 65.0,7 740u 87; o60 33.7 32.7 .26 S7.6 S 0
* r., 0 H 48 390 27.0 10.4 .29 70.8(9112 7 "00 1 580 1270 58.9 44.7 .17 49.9
4 1100 1070 160 32.7 42.6 .36 72.9,, 5IHM) 7 ',) 518 16. 2
20.1 .40 73.2%,1 tt,401 3Y8 7760 19. B 11.5 .30 42.0S ." ".1 5.. )1) 930 790 24.8 13.9 .18 60.3
A", 2 33.-8( 1029 1514 28.9 25.7 .29 61.9
;n 1i. (,astai Waterway
"1 , ,h00 0 870 ND 18.1 .25 76.9C-8 8P'.0 0 1090 14.0 26.7 .24 45.2
1. 0 ,h i 21. 2'00 5 2.1 98.1 .41 59.7 I S4, 10 4B 5.3 .10 36.8
, .. H'J 8() , 2.'' 4)310 12.0 16.0 -_ 46.9-\ '." 4 V, 3221 ".07 52.A .33 45.1
,2 ,;1 122 1 808 30.0 27.0 .36 56.5.. . :;, ; .',) 4331o 13.3 17.A .09 53.3
,- 'C70 20.8 31.3 .22 52.5
.. :' d o R P, 'r ' % D r . M g !K g
H 3 1 ' 710 Q80 19.7 12.6 0.29 63.5(,0000 1 0i 1 150 33.1 32 9 0.987 58.0
* .R -, _'O 1041 1II1) 19.2 2u.3 0.5 8 53.8,v;.. . ), ) 8"10 1 "' 19,4 0.17 70.42.0 f'Hf t, 180 16.9 2r0 2 0.)0 72 9
•.1I 410 -4) 3 I27.1 43.1 , 0.68 74.62 141) 1' ) 3 , 478 (1.33 43.6
16.: 0.40 70.4. ,'II 7 1 (.2' 3 .5
6(43 1-.3
,, 12.. ,i 1 0.1 67.4.4o .04 2 1
04, 4.7
4241 (.24 34.4
03 3.132 (6.3
" ," , ' "0 .1 2- 4.
64 0I ;1 " ,:'.; - 82 -: 40.9
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000 0 0 0 0
IAi'MIK 3 (cont inued)
Volatile Solid COD TKN GREASE PB ZN i(" Total
Station 600" Dry Dry Dry Wet Wet Dry Solids
% Dry Mg/Kg .... S
Mtono River % Dry MG/KG
51096 7.7 60700 1530 980 1.3.4 13,9 .14 63.0
S 1088 7.4 28500 250 780 7.1 3.4 .12 76S 104 A 17.8 75600 1480 410 24.6 10.3 .40 57.3
- S 104 B 9.3 8250 360 210 19.3 14.1 09 84.3S 104 C 2.4 19900 540 300 23.6 7.7 .31 779S 104 LM 26.6 89400 1740 780 31.8 23. .21 51.4S 105 A 5.9 47100 900 240 14.3 25.5 .19 61 8S 1056 12.2 142000 3310 620 15.9 202 .20 41.6S 106 B 1.8 13000 570 65 .42 ".7 .23 75.7S 106 C 6.0 66700 730 200 21.2 19.8 .20 5 . 5S 107A 3.4 20600 940 110 ND 19.7 .28 67.3
S108 A 4.6 38100 1240 260 23.4 13.1 29 58.0S 107C 15.9 182000 2640 5170 19.6 2.9 34.1108 C 6.5 54200 9.0 2620 30.3 26.1 0.20 53.2106 A 104.4 113700 3400 1120 17.8 35.8 .66 50.4109 A 4.4 31200 660 720 12.8 11.1 .14 r1.4109 B 3.5 38000 720 480 20.7 12.2 .25
109 L 15.9 166000 4500 870 11.6 20.1 .24 38.3|109 RM 14.6 115000 - 1500 22.3 13.4 .96 34.5110 A 2.8 26500 460 480 20.7 23.2 .33 67.9111A 5.5 51400 1100 560 3.9 14.3 .18 60.3111 B 2.0 10300 565 320 12.9 4.7 .43 75.2
111 C 1.2 64800 1660 460 4.8 18.6 .17 55.0Average (Stono R.) 8.16 61606 1372 837 16.3 17.5 .27 59.2
I 'I
* 0 S 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
6 TAB LE 4PFSTICIDE ANM.1YSES
F3c ttomIl Scdcle. fitsU. . ,
(ug /k1g)
I 1.7
71~ 0.
0,f)
N 1; 4
I S
~ 0
I I S
I .... , . *IS
I I S
C -
0
I S
I I S
U I 5
* S I
S U U U U U U U U U U U U 9 U S
-x m 00- ) ci 0 N
C4 c14 -0 0 o * ( (
- ~ ~ ~ ~ r mDQ V 0 ** *
Co m 0 0 0N CD 1 0 Z 0 -
0
17 r4 *- sri -4 Ic -.T r-
col C4 1-1) I - f I I 0.4-i C4 (N IT 0 - C)4 0 ~
V) (U 0 -4 04 0- c4 I O* -
Wr *; c1 1- C' N 0 r
C1
0 ba-.~~~Lr ccn a' *sr N-x (Nl C) -' m C) C) .1
Lr- -4 10 -4 r- V 14.
14 ON C) 0V) (N - ~ -4 .- o 00 N- e 0
bo I I 1 00 -4 OC (t 4rO 0 0-4 (NC) V) r 47 N Lf I Q).1m 0 * C 0 1 Ir a r. 0
-1 0 4 ( 0 N r) -- '0 (N Q4(N
=- 0 4 0 *T C I
lu N- 03 -f 0 C 4 4 L-
a to I I L) I I I -n rnaPC 4 -4 C) 0 0) Lni IN '1 N N- I IW~
10 -40 -0 0 0~ *O I 0 L0 (N C N-* -0 c; 21 c" 0 a)
L) CO w -(
z - - mCj 4 C 0. fn *r 4u 10 '0 w' -(d j W *4 - N- 0 -*v (N - n ca 0'0
(N -4 a) (N '0 (N C0 (N E4 )
> 4j-4 C 0 u
N- ( 0a-4~ CD LI r * -0 C_ '0 .A
cl~ It 0- C4 C4 00 *D w1 ct N- ->1 4.j *N () * 0 c 4t 4= -V
Cr w ~ 0r C) 0 'o I0 - r- '0l <I = 54-QW
I 1- 1 1 0 ) 1 1 'u0 10-C 0 0J) * r 0 C4 0*- .) Li) 0)10.t o G
a- C) 0 (N4 (N0 Ic Lr 4-
0a- 0 *' r c~~~~0~4 0 N 0 ' ! ' i - 4 $4
C) cl, a Q)
* 00 O C W0 0
0 -a tr aU-4 -- 4 UA-J0.- C 0.
Ca) m4 OL *j
ClCm C-4 -4 0.1 0 U00 O
1 8
rU I,: 0 ,I [,
t .1
ri t
liA t
1: . , rdA .
n~ ,i1 .2 Ilti
t I" itm I' i.*fl nti
II I- i. i t cn L -l
<2 I 'tm I tM M lil
I. t . ) In
A I ~~it 1 '
It 'I I A,1. I \,t 2, s 2 I u v
wr.tn~ it 7, 1 1 -t 1.i C
I: ]. t it .l ponds
Aii *Ci±J tt It d '11 1i
t 0
U ~ ___ ;~ * 5 6t
wo
Sl-rl I!-% f Phy ,Cherical and icrblolcgfcal Da t: Ccllected by the
Environrental Protect ion Agency uring k ctnber and :cvember, i971
octcber, 1971
NIr0ge. -'. Is Pb, spro,, s NonlileraOle 'c-I -
Te' p p-i C iordoe DO BOD, TOC Corl ,.p" '. s ',' I n R ,s'-.1- 1 i Metal , . g I '
s5 C rnq g g ' r 1 j mg TKN NH). N NO 2 1 4 3
Toral P OrlhI) P T(olal Vol C. Cr Pb Zn Mn Ce iij !Fo, f
g '19 77 't,30 , 1 52 042 005 0 l i) u04 10 14 45 20 170 4$- 6$ 101, -'2
I M- '10 83 '340t, 67 '4 60 , 14 $10 (10) 2.8 0 63 21 6D -20 2 40 " c. 80. 157'
M 20 0 69 1 64 ' 6 42 J. 4 u 02 002 112 2 6 3 -2 1,1 , 0 6 .
A. 71 1 2., 64 1 4 2 4 2 'A b, 3 (1 6
I M ' ;, ij 2s b3 254 016 lSb1 04 A ,4 31 9
k4 ? ,21 4 24 4 0 2i 64 1, 2 0 $) 0') 6 2
, 110 0 8 4 l .41 02 005 003 0 ") 19 5
4 85 2612 78 1' . - W 9 1 ,' 010 C 4 C03 25 8
N' 20 65 '0 34 J)4 42 123 n.; 203 002 01.1 9 2
A 1
5 9 7' S0 o45 0,15 005 004 002 17 5 h
M., 2, 78 76 90 60 059 2C6 005 005 004 24 6
W A I' I Ia 40 21 1 064 003 003 0V1 9 4
A 6 L;8 4 ' )914 004 )04 0(,I 12 3 35 20 '80 45 .b 65 'v-,4., 2'2 , 9 a0 II b0 :46 0, R 0 05 L)05 0 02 17 4 40 2J (80 ,0 303 92£,( 22.',
M 8 72 05 42 22 0.6 3 003 002 '001 7 i 30 '20 '60 30 20 790 '20 " S
A6 2 a 7 6 09 42 242 007 w 05 004 003 16 4 45 '20 '80 35 30 945 2
7 M-2 62 '1 5? (3 5,) 112 019 000 007 24 9 50 20 BO Q 4040 1192 '2
1 2k 6 1 4 40 n '6 04 (103 0 03 011 9 3 40 120 '80 10 20 00
A, . ' 4 I 1 52 '.44 : 4 $1:' 004 002 9 3 --
d4 M 9 84 10 115 108 4 01 006 003 14 5 - --- - -0
Il 210 0 7 73 50 038 003 '001 002 201 3 1----- - 20
Agq 28 72 74 18 45 CI46 004 003 001 001 9 3 25 -20 '80 20 20 740 '20 150
8 Us. 215 78 11 80 1 I 50 058 006 004 003 002 12 4 30 '20 '80 20 30 1100 20 331
M, 200 64 7 '0 08 40 033 003 002 002 001 8 2 20 '20 .80 20 10 380 '20 0
,,uvoo.,Ltr, ].'7i
NdIrog .rsou Phlosphoru NonfilIerable FecaI
T 'P PH Chlo,.a () BOD TOC Coopour.d s mg i mg I Resdue mg I Metals. 09,l C101,10
5ta 'C U'le "g I "'g I "g I mg 75TK, NI4, N N02N- , 3 Total P OlhO F' Tota VOl C,, C, Pb Zn M" Fe klg 100 rl• ,I •
I 179 17 9030 64 $14 " 9 031 002 0 '5 005 004 44 12 67 '20 232 135 58 2212 30 460
S a 22? 8 1 14 800 7 4 1 0 90 100 006 319 0 12 0 10 128 34 100 '22 480 380 100 6650 50 '70L
Mc 2sO '0 3020 53 f18 40 014 "10-)1 1101 002 002 13 2 40 '20 130 60 20 650 '20 1.11
A 61!4 b 1 "8 bJ 026 ,' 'i 006 006 1706 4b II---- 22$
3 Ma. 80 131.' l I 0 100 040 001 C1, 020 010 '46 31 '90
M 15 ''7 321 )1 5b 4,30 17 (j I 11 012 002 002 13 3 20
A4 b ,4 " .. .27 07.9 034 014 6J 8 92
4 %1- . 2 9,' F 7 0 9 8 13 48 119,.I 011 109 G007 44 19 "r -. ' IL
6 ', 6' 9 9 014 50 0 113 '001 Ot, 002 001 9 2.21
S, , , '12 '0 '7 o3 003 ,12 224 0'3 11 3 - -60
.. 8 1 ,* ,42 100 .)83 0(15 114 006 r)1' 23 ' I"
In
49 2 6 113 '02 1 1:9 0 02 3 2C
4" '4 A '6 1 :126 ,102 0 12 04 003 11 4 23 '20 80 45 50 1120 20 10,
k. 26 95 77 9, "1 7. 21' 0(17 2 05 45 10 40 '20 '80 140 100 '320 '20 49,.. 21 ' '-' '. 3 106 0 1 1 10 '20 <80 20 20 86) '.20 20
. " ' f) I. 1 o.- 1 4 27 20 1 1, 28 -8 4017 20 ',<
4 k Q, l- I " ,5 - 1 19 0 .13 46 11 60 20 1O 4110 60 !250 '2"' '1
9 2 4 4 -; -0. I'S -' 1 1 12 -5 M . 0 20 15 6(I l ;
4 4. 14 '1 0I' 6 2 - -
I I I3 ' 1 A Ill'' . . 1 2 11 7:1 1i 16 1 t 14 C, 1 001 1 1
.' ''2' 12 '3 06 69 1 41 (132 111 ( 23A 003 7 3 32 20 80 32 32 %8 '20 1',
A'.. 22 1 80 20 p4 ,8 W(70 095 003 01 037 006 l6 8 80 '20 100 40 50 1250 '20 ;4,
k4, 14 5 '3 8 56 )4 42 2 '6 2r), 0 ' 02 )02 d 1 20 '20 80 20 10 63V7 ' 20 .
4 -Alc"m
- -.'. -- - S
0
p-~ S
0
S
- 1: 1 4 1-
I .1.1<.
I S
5, 1 1
If I
- I~i2.1l I I 0
.~1 I''*' p1 5> IrA S
If I
KI 0
I 00
'1
S U U S U S S S S S S S S S S S S
L
* 1 I 0
I. .- ,- -p
I I I--I
..~ ~
U L~v___*JiL L. - .iit~jL. --- - + -
-itI
S
I. I
IC-
-~ {L t ~7~7j1 j~2 [ ~ I :1 0
* I >1
I I
I
. [ I- ~--i---~ -
- --K-I---- 4lIl~ 0*1~7~
-II ii;
- 4 --- . -
- S - . I -~ * S
- I I.i
---- I--
II CIII
------------------------------------------------------------------------~.1 j*
. . I S
-- -- -~ -
* S
* S S S S S S S S S S S S S
I '~ F I
I F
-J -.
~I I
2~ CD a
V -'~~-'
~p aiD (N aDD 0
--------------------------------------------------------------t-~-1 -.-~------II2~I-~ a~ ,-
aD r.- a~)N a! *1* N
i~I
I ~ aD
I ~- -.- .-- ,- 4 -4
.I CD
I a
C p ~-*-~it- 0____________F N
* I- I I.-,
6
I PaD' I
-I ,~,I777~7 0
U
I II
- ,1
* 0 '- -~j;C-,'
A4
- I
* S U S S S S S S 5 0 5 5 5 5 S 0
I :1 I 0
- - - ---- - - .---- , I S
* I- I
I I 0
( I.
I 0
£ IS
* I S
I S
I S
I S I S
V S S S U S S S S S S U S U S S
4 pC4
InIa (N Ix
(N -4
rj r
(oNr
(N 1 o
l 44
'-ar
g -. U)
15Wi r'
co*
- a r - 4 10 co
-- 10r
004
14 14
Cll
d~U)
C -r , C
LIl
,~ *r"
[ - - -. - - - - -. . .. -. - J.
* 0
0~~ 0
>4 >4 2 -. . >4 >4 >4 >4 >4 >. >4
S 0C) ON.4) .- , Cs .2 -r 7 1)) LI) Cfl .-4 --4 C- ~CA IN 4') N ..A .4 IN .7 ,-.4.7
Cs --4 - '2 4)4
In CA AN4-,
* S
In
41 1~1 -1 4) l.A 5
~J K - CA ~' - .-~ ~ 0
-I 'I CC 1'-
C) .--4 .1
-~ I" .7 CA CO
CA '-i .7 0)
(A .1 .4 C) Cs .-4Cs
- -~ '-I -- -- - - S
* 0
b-II I. I
I I! Lj
S * 0
- ~4 I.~ ~ ~
G
I ~8
S U U U U S S S 0 S 0 0 S 0 0 0 0
- ---------------------------------------------------
*
~~0
lii * 0* 0
6 0
I ~ 4 -.4
I IC I - 0
-, I- -4
* '--1 0
--4 I AF 1I I A
-~ 4
-4* 0
I F4 -1 t
p. F
* 0
,
I 0 .4 - 4S
I.
* 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
- . -&. ~.7 ' NjX N'.~ ~-v-~w---r-- . - - - <2
2~ -0 ~' 0 ~- - -4 -. 2 z 0 2 1 .j ~f~f H.I - cc - .0 -
-< - - -~ 1
I-~ .. - -~ - c-cr
- *2' -* ~2
I 0Ti ft -
~'2
- - - '- - X
*12
ft *-. - - -
* 0
C .~ S
* * .- f - -
* 0
* S
* 0
* S
* 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 S 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
ICN 00n-
04 C"00C 1I (N
o~ .1..
~~~J00 00-5255
x r CD0 %i0 r0 0 0 C0 .t -.E.04 In-
-4
t4 0 0U C. 00-40 00 - 0
W 4t4
ca '- I ) 0 0
0. w . . I.
w ~ I 0ejo o 0- 0
0 c%Wl -4 ~4 44-
4. 4j 0. 4 ) 0 -4 0 0
0/) en
cli C" 0000 .- Q
-- 4
-4 -4
7 00 0 C D(". 0. -40 -4 0
A1 1 0 c
C1J CD Lf C3, CN
0 CC14
'.04
w '.0 >-4t
aC ) W cuwnC) 0l m >j Cli C)Q 0 C w >
m Iu O u 0 4 C O0o cl CL a >o 04 -4 -4C1 n
1) a- 2 0 0CZ) CO 0. 3 '-4 o~C O. 0 f>-= - >) 0.4 U t
Ci~ tn W-~ 0. - ~ ~J 4 0
161
4 Ln .- EN
Jn 0rl)~J fn(- kn 6*it
d-i 0 N C 00CD0 0 00
0~10
u) - 0~J 0N U > 0
4 4 C;0
*~~~~~0 cCr0 't ,)00 0 0
0 u
o- - -L 00 0 L
(-~C (D oi10E(D (N
0clx C 0' 10N c 0 0 N 000
0 p..) - 1)(n C 0 C)
x N~ 0
C) C_- ~ J1 V-4) n uA o
c, (( 0-1 c1 , D a c
co C- en- 0 'D0
L* CI 0 00L
Nl N
o~~ rl c 1, 0
>.- (1 *-.-4
r) LA) t.K ~ r. )uc, c: ,*
-C.
C4r-( ' 0 00 CN r- rl r- r r.
CC'
N c 7, 'A C4 C) .vi (C) (N -o
.- 4 CN C'N(
-C) C) -1 .0C 0 C
4
C
C 'NC) N- (N--) r-. .
C-4 CN C1 -C4 1
I-i
ICC zNc)~~ DcN 0N 00)--~
'4) CD .
7D 1 4C
rniD ( C) 0DC CD
vi 'n 0 )C)C
0~
~~- ,4.T
* ' N N - -- (Nl- CC~f -
$.i r~ 4~ . .>~ C>
C) ~ C -, (NEC' (7
c -~ C.-) ~ C N- )(N( ~ ~ ~L--
n. C-3
44 W0 40cr, C1 Le , -4c
-4
U, r0 0 00 -r-MC4C4 "Itl
~ 0 % ' o-.t C, C0 0 0)C C 'z -4
C:) en C,4. 0 i)r-
*t '.0r > C
00 en c r. Lr cn 01 nUl -r 1
0) LO 04 0, 0 C)0
a)-'-4 -4 -
(n C'4 C4.UC ,%C Li NN~
ca 0,N 0 C) C-- 0
a, V) C4 n 44-
U,~ 0L( C;~~C~' OO Ne'e
4l C14O 0000-l C4 -4400
4 UC 0 NU, DC
E0 0i -4 - 04
CN -4L 7 - ,C D 0 J 3 - ,C
- 4A 00 C -
cy- r -r. Lf c ce' r.0 0% 0r
30 0 4
00 C O r C14 c- 0LrC' U- r,"tI
C e4* C1,0 0 .- f* ,*0'C )
In Ul -
C" C1,4 U,.UU c-l40
s 00co >
73 w .1 w 1'l
C:N 0 U. C- 0- t-- Er>cm-Z 71 0C -0' V0 - Lr Gi~~' u -4h- ZL
tr C: -4 m 0 V)
*) .- - i-4 " a)C1: nL)0:L
.06
TAI LE 17z p. t per o 1r e -e. f 'I.he4 rd invertebratea in three Cooper River. South Carolina, tidal atre. In April. July,
-u N,.o er jO71 NStrerm or -f.rglnius are -Lce- ded by wtht. Ipound.' 1n parentheses.
Sampling Site
(.rjni. Clouter No. I Clouter No. 2 Buhy Park Mean I
April July N-v.he r April J.ly Novher April July November April J uly No..ber
zuI.-o. on... get 2 5 1 2(5.6) (13.5) (0.1) (6.4) (,O.1)
&mlli.5e - l,.afln.
b.hal Ia I~Pln 1 01(2.6) (0.9)
*0,,', u e - trete~a r e. I.
oo tl1a rrtratt, .Oaertr.. eli 462 23 1 559 1,303 18 463 28 9 495 451 9(10.3) (2.0) (0.3) (6.5) (108.0) (1.5) (14.5) (2.5) (1.0) (10.4) (37,5) (0.9)
id..a herring.
0. ba ak~t~oaliahbuei,. herring 85 961 107 384(0.4) (5.1) (0.2) (1.9)
hr(0 6) 1 0A -_ w-.Kd_ 3, 398 15,562 9 22 464 21,421 5 2 7 8,621 12,330 5
((.11 (33.8) ((017 ( 1 1.6) ('0.1) ('- 1) ( 0.1) (2.7) (35.1) (,0.1b,- ea jelt-,.. I-,.rd shad 7 13 14 251 8 3 9 1 8 87 7
(0.4) 1 .3) (0.2) (1.1) (2.3) (0.2) (0.5) (0.7) (0.3) (0.5) (1.4)S-. ,a.. teteT, e thr-dftin .hd 2 1 I
(<0.1) ( 0.1) (0 1
e08.- a..1 C dio.- arhovle 1050o ton .1 1111. 6.y b nho, 435 107 10,508 1,305 36 4.083
(0.1) (0.3) (22.3) (0.3) (0.1) (7.6)
Ci hati T',ik.r 1 1 '1
ft. -tnaret and carp.
., :'. rtp ,
-7,p 2 <
(12.0) (7.3)
Olt-, it i. htob 379 521 1 209 82 '.59 884 1 196 497 154
C (12.8) (24. 7 (,0.1) '4.0) (6.51 (30.4) (5.0) (0.3) (5.6) (12..) (10.2,1
. .. a ..rto. . AtIantit n d!efl h 9 2 1 1 1 l 4 i.(0.1) (0.9) (.0.1) (0.4,) (.0.1) (0.3) (,0.1) (0.1) .
86 ,ctmnhg 949 21,476 4.580 3.9,,4 806 a0 3,805 2.100 9,748 26.(6.6) (30 0) (13.4) (7.79 (0.9) 11.1) (17.1) (7.0) (18.3) (0.3)
f , , 1 l qui t ji h 2 '110111 (-oi)
d.-er 1oa I er iloer.ide 80 414 b R6 1.636 1235 12 39 414 541 696
(1., ()"., ('t'I, 1"8, (B (2.0 (0.1 ] (,.) (0.1) 11.2) (0.4)p, ! ,I dr. ri Iti rot8. I 1.936 ,1 64,
('0. ) (1.81 (0.11 (0.6)
. . . . . .. . .. , ertar '1
(,oo.,
'(.]1 ,0.1)
S1)
-: " " " : t , '(1.2 ) . 3)
237 t ,. R
7 RD-fl49 547 CHARLESTON HARBOR DEEPENING PROJECT CHARLESTON HARBOR 3/3AND SHIPYARD RIVER SOUTH CRROLINA(U) CORPS OF ENGINEERSCHARLESTON SC CHARLESTON DISTRICT APR 76
UNCLASSIFIED F/G 13/2 NLmmhmhhhhihhhl
mIhaahIEEa//hE
7711
11111N 1 1" ItQl2. QQ2.
2.2.
L .361111 '*'~ *4 ~I~2.0
11111 .25 11.4 1.
MICROCOPY RESOLUTION TEST CHARTNA I ANAL kRl AU 4 -S ANPARI> I A
p. 0
rABLJ, 1.7 (continued)
sampling $It* "
Clotr oI C.outer Ko. 2 Bushy Pak meso
April July No-b.T April July No0*.b- April July Novem.ber April J..1y 9we
j.LL 21cochlroe b1..1 "2'.
a alcroloph. d t1 1 '1 '1n"ishi at L , r spotedt $=afish (.0.1) ('0.1) ('0.1) (0.1)*e,~ £ t.8 *potted *u~f 1. 1 1 16 '1 '1"-
('0.1) (0.1) (0.6) ('0.1) (0.2)
* 72 r n.1ide. lsreg.w.tb bass 1 1 23 3 6 421 11 2 148 5
- -(0.1) (0.1) (3.2) (0.8) (1.3) (3.1) (3.3) (0.5) (2.1) (1.6) -
fl .'-c aol.r2.. hit* reppi. 3 18 24 47 14 5 9 14 10 9
(0.1) (1.8) (0.7) (1.3) (0.3) (0.5) (0.9) (0.4) (0.4) (0.9) .
* ,. 7 -- ..rhf: -. a4 3 2 6 14 4 3 6 2
°Ir7. flevescens yellow rb 1(0.2) (0.3) (1.0) (0.2) (0.5) (C.4) (0.1) (0.3) (0.5)
70*' -11-5 - bloefiflb.8P- *.. s ltri e blsefib 3 1
._-__~ sa1atr(0.1) ('0.1)
,'.. n,,, .8 c . , - .€ b, a d p , .1o o s
a.Si-. .. J cack. ll r..k 6 20(0.1) (0.6) ('0.1) (0.2)
-,!'a - Jerru 4 17(I0.1) (0.1) (0.1) ('0.1)
1.oI1,s chj- ra, silver pa1ch M 3 41944 1.70 1
-- (0.3) (0.1) (1.) 206 (o11,!~i( ebuloet-e spotrted aeatrout 5 •
. ... t(0.3)) (0.1)
.ea.s. chorie. spot 7 2.783 2826 29 1,341 3,058 76 12 1.375 1,987
0. 1. 1 (;.1) (1.5) (9.9) (2.5) (0.4) (0.6) (6.0) (1.0)._J d - t- , A tlan t c croa ker 1 9 548 26 5 4 25 2 44 ; l O0 32 4 73 3 9
" -(2;.3)(0 ) (8;.4) (i.6) (0.1) (3i.8) (0 .1) ( 0.11"".-
s*. - irulfet8
* .i cPhslu, striped mullet 2,053 1.228 4 1,582 35 22 830 24 2 1.488 429 9
(36.3) (9.8) (1.4) (36.8) (4.4) (4.2) (22.7) (2.2) (0.3) (31.9) (5.5) (2.0)
-,btldae - &Lcbles!-,.7.. d lyric.a. lye g.obY 2 '1
(oO.1) ('0.1)
,t r)! 1. ehastatus. shrptall goby 3 1,218 1 406
(,0.1) (0.6) ('0.1) (0.2)
-. ,0.ellus hufeldti, freshwater Roby 1 37 1,212 2,121 889 2,035 3,282 1.386 1,403 404
('0.1) (0.1) (0.2) (4.7) (3.8) (2.7) (4.7) (2.5) (2.9) (10.1)
o1- bostl, -aked goby 1,081 403 416 1 397 361 267 139
(2.4) (0.1) (0.2) (10.1) (0.1) (0.8) ('0.1) ('0.1)
:- 7..- 1ft.y. flounder2rr,2. crossotu&, fringed flounder 9 2 4
-~ (0.1) (0.1) ('0.1) p1s-ell d tst , summr flounder1 1 1
.... . . (0.1) (0.3) (0.1) (0.2)
1hI h ethotle. southsr0 7 1 2,922 9 1.220 9 1.383 6
flou.d., (0.5) (0.1) (1.5) (0.2) (0.9) (0.2) (1.0) (0.2)
-A..5 - sa1es" 'o ..mcu.lstug_ hogchoker 1 1 1 1 ,1 '1 '1
('0.1) ('0.55 (0.1) ('0.5) ('0.3) ('0.1) ('0.1)
.2 specie) 26,718 44.551 5,066 111, 33 35.538 17,983 9,138 8.938 2.802 49,003 29,676 8.617
(99.9) (118.3) (7.1) G267.0) (257.1) (74.9) (49.1) (37.7) (10.4) (102.0) (137.7) (30.9)
', ,- •: e- u,-.. hr imps g- h. iap.
[., .r.. shrimp 50,8b0 157,416 4,039 307.312 980,016 334.093 56,177 10,093 2 138,116 449.175 112,711. .(24.7) (247.7) (0.4) (122.0) (663.3) (104.8) (13.1) (2.0) (0.1) (53.3) (004.3) (35.1)
- I.7. shri.ps
lt. h611t shriep 11,759 481 50,668 20,809 160
13.5 (2.1) (61.5) (25.0) (0.7)
blue ,.b 1,635 15 ;,2i6 2,161 8,1s1 909 1.638 425 2 2,011 2.864 676
(94.6j (1.2; (I.i) (3.1) (32.4) (1.4) (30.4) (1.9) (0.7) (42.7) (11.8) (1.1)
5.brte,95 369,. 19, ,7)4 110.0)) 1,038,RI5 314.902 57.81, 10,518 4 140.127 472.848 113.547
( .* 119.3) (262.4) f 7,1.0 (12,.1) (757.2) (106.2) (43.5) (3.9) (0.77 (96.0) (341.2) (36.8)
-rgan... 79_)i .13(741 t0,902 .21,206 1.074 .371 72.89 66.953 19,456 2.806 19t.131 50-..523 122.164
'. . * .19.2) (JHC.7, 710.9) (292.1) (1.014.3) 1)91.1) (02.6) (41.6) (11.1) (201.3) (478.9) (67.7)
1, _ d . S. ... .......... - I e 166
-~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~IA -, IS-- ~- ~ . -~-~~*~- ---- ~--
Species Co- 3ition of Fish Captured in Charleston Harbor Dumping Area
Family &Species N4o. of Specimens Length Range (mm)
CarcharhinidaeMustelus canis 1 641
Raj idaeRaja e~1anteria 1 477
EngraulidaeA-.choa hepsetus 12 100-119
SynodontidaeSynodus foetene 144 140-339
Ogcocephalidaeogcocephalus 1 59
GadidaeUrophycis reqius 1 188
SyngnathidaeCentropristis striata 12 71-1820IDiplectrum formosum 1 91
CaranqidaeCaran-x crysos 1 164u ec-,ctorus macarellus 10 122-144recapterus punctatus 4 133-173
Lut j nidae*Lutjanus analis 8 76-126
GerreiciseEucinostomus argenteus 1 90Fucinostomus gula 1 78
Fom-ad osy idaeOrthopristis chrysoptera 1 122
Stecnotomus caprinus is 75-120Lagoion rhorchoides 3'105-118
ScianidaeBairdiella chrysura 1 140Leicstomus xanthurus 10 135-155
TrichiuriciseTrichiurus lepturus 1 216
Str'cmateidaePeojrilus triacanthus so5 105-144
Trjc--l i-aePriomiotus evolans 3 103-118PrionAtus scitulus 9 101-121
B t hidevtATcc-:sttj uadracellata 4 146-199
Charc'1is s-p:Ilopterus 26 53-81Scc'j2hthallrus aq7uosus 1 119
Bal is t daeBaliStes capriscus 1 122 -Manocarntths hispidus 1 540
Total No. 328
7.7
T A B LE 19SPECIZS COMPOSITION OF BENTHIC AND FREE-SWIMMING INVERTEBRATES CAP-TURED IN CHARLESTON HARBOR DUMPING AREA. I
UNCOMMON COMMON ABUNDANT-
Portunidae XXX
Cancridae X
P aguridae XX
Xiphosura X
squillidae XX
*Loliginidae XXX
* Holothuroidea X
*Echinoidea XX
As teroidea XX 0
ophiuroidea XX
Gastropoda xx
Pelecypoda X0
Chaetopoda X
0Arithozoa xx
Apineura X
1.68
0 04
APPENDIX A
ECONOMIC DATA, EXTRACTED FROM U. S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS SURVEY
REPORT, CHARLESTON AND SHIPYARD RIVER, SOUTH CAROLINA. COMPLETEDOCUMENT IS AVAILABLE AT U. S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, CHARLESTON,
SOUTH CAROLINA
Type of Benefit Charleston Harbor Shipyard River
Savings in TransportationCosts
(1) Petroleum Products $4,428,000 $716,000
(2) Containerized Cargo 1,100,000
(3) Dry Bulk Cargo
a. Ore - 648,000
b. Oil & Grains 369,000
Reduction in Hazards toNavigation 33,000
TOTALS $5,930,000 $1,364,000
Estimated First Costs and Annual Charges
Item Charleston Harbor Shipyard River
FederaL First Costs $ 23,688,000 $1,979,000 0
Non-Federal First Costs 3,498,000 1,212,000
TOTAL FIRST COSTS $ 27,186,000 $3,191,000
AnnLL1 uil aurgj
1"'ade rl S 2,766,000 $ 508,000
Not- Fde ra t 329,000 436,000
TOTAL $ 3,095,000 $ 944,000
EXCt AuI I 111 BenkI it ~ S 2,835,000 $ 420,000
Ben. Iit -C t t Rat i 1.92 1.44
• ". .- .- ,.." . . ... ..
00
Table of Contents
Page No.
U. S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation
Service B-1
Department of Health, Education and Welfare B-1
Federal Power Administration B-2
U. S. Department of Interior B-2
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency B-4 -
U. S. Department of Commerce B-6
U. S. Coast Guard B-7
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation B-7 .
South Carolina Wildlife & Marine Resources Dept. B-8
South Carolina State Ports Authority B-8a
South Carolina Electric & Gas Company B-9
Honorable James R. Mann B-10
Honorable Clyde M. Dangerfield B-1O
Honorable James B. Edwards B-11
Honorable Harris P. Smith B-11
Honorable L. Mendel Rivers, Jr. B-12
Honorable John E. Bourne, Jr. B-12
Airco Alloys and Carbide B-13 - "
Amerlux Steel Products Corporation B-13 - -
Amobelge Shipping Corp. B-14
Associated Container Transportation (USA) B-15-"
Bagnal Lumber Company B-15
Bowman Transportation, Inc. B-16
Braswell Shipyards, Inc. B-16
Carolina Eastman Company B-17
Charleston Branch Pilots' Association B-18
Charleston Oil Company B-19
Coastal Forwarders B-21 -
Coastal Steel Company B-21
Commercial Bonded Warehouse, Inc. B-22
Cryovac B-22
9 0 0 - ° ''
Page No.
Daniel Construction Company B-23
Del Monte Terminal B-23 _
E. I. DuPont De Nemours & Company B-24 .
Exxon Company, USA B-24
General Electric Company B-25
Harley Corporation B-26
Hoechst Fibers Incorporated B-27 D> eLBC&W Industrial B-28
Leigh Textile Company B-28
Lifetime Doors, Inc. B-29
Lockwood Greene Engineers, Inc. B-29 0
The Maritime Association of the Port of Charleston B-30
Jack McCarthy B-31
Newton International Corporation B-31
Overnight Transportation Company B-32 0
Palmetto Shipping and Stevedoring Co., Inc. B-32
Pilot Club of Charleston B-33
Price Paper Corporation B-34
Reeves Controllers Division B-34
Saco-Lowell Corporation B-35 -
Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Company B-35
Seatrain Lines, Inc. B-36
South Atlantic Terminals, Inc. B-36 0
South Carolina National Bank B-37
Southeastern Maritime Co. B-38
Street Brothers B-39
Tindall Concrete Products, Inc. B-40
Utica Tool Company, Inc. B-40
Wilbur Smith and Associates B-41
White Stack Towing Corporation B-42
* 0
S w w V S S S S S 5 • 5 5 5 5 5- • W .
. °- ..1.7
tz |
.)
'00
14 C U, "-]m 0 m CL
C) C) ,. C -
,-o). wo 0
"3 .= X
4 01 a) 0 Q.
0 0 x Si "
i ) C)a W. Si0 c
w - V ) 0.
.00 .0 Pi P 4 C, 0
en r om w p
S-- -- 0
0~~~ 0.0 ) S i C C
1Cu •
r 12 0
o3 0
40 0 0 v I
a.1
4 SE S
Z- t,
. -W
Ii , C..)..7
o., 4.- . . C." •.
0 c
- l 01-. o24
C' 00 w.33 S. -a lo
0C% u-01 WU3' 0.V'0 W W:
o- 4 3 _ ; '40 '4 0>3 -.1CC m 43. - W- '4.0 LC . ..
.010 00 433 93
3.04
I~~ o U4C.o u OE3 W
'3~ ~~~~~~ '4LC3 3 'C 443 E 4
43> C C - 10 4-0. 0 4"4** 'C 4.3 c4~~.- C W.-X 'C43 * fl 0o i''400-C 0 CU ~ 43C>' 44-3 413
44 43 4301. t~ >. * -1.3CC -Ur
4.3 '4 3 C'00 ~ .043 434 5VU ..;43 4.CC L 0.0 OIV
-- '-1.'- 4 4333CC 3..a
C>LW m. 0 Uj u3 11
43.4CC. 3, >3.3-C -L.>C4- 90.3.3
OOL.C t c 44
'433 0 4
0 5
4- OOC . CO
Cc~~~0 C Ro o nO ' a '.C -E
CCCC cc -0
2 CV -E mC oC -
4- 4-cc C' -C3- CO C -0
>
.i3-s-sc~CcC o 0--5.c c,---c'C s5- 0-'sC ~00.k- i - C ~-3
,~-3CO--.0 C o.-CC 0.-- Lc CCtmm
s-si~~~ m c L~- , 0 C0 Co os C C
O ~ ~ ~ - w~'0-s 3 0 L 4'C C
'-03~~~~~~~~1 WC4C 0 -COv C V CC Xs --
Oc-c~~~~~eC~ 4- 1 C c ~ C C scor~~~s-~ 1a Cd- yN C C- -C >
cac-c~~~~~c.--~~ w-Z.,.- C- VO . C o '
Coo~~~~~~~~~~I 33CCL 0cCa-'-*--C -nc-
CC 5--C ) 3 CC CL )5'y 450c CtOC
0 ~ ~ ~ ~ I t W,0 Cs0 C 1-C - C - -
z. 0
zz
0jU
an
FAC
S S
CCC
2-- 0. C o.C
-e 2CC C., C 4. 0.. CC xtC
2,..
4' t2..
C ~ at C C
4' C ~.- -
4--- A- -
a. a.>--- 4~~C C -
2 C CL.
4' a.~U 3- - a.
a.>- CtCC
4-
4 .t-t *~C
'S 0
4-- C3
4' -. CC
2 ' CL C* -- -. B B>- - C 2"~ -4-- BR a. - C C - S
-- -- 2;:3~Zt3
-C~~ 4-ct
or 0C-C
- -- . - a.-~ -' C2
4.
0 ~ -CC'C S/
0
SC"
-- -.- ~. ~-. C -<
- -. C - -.
* 6
* 0 - 0 * 0 0 S 0
IdI
w u
1 0 -C
zz 2 2
4 2 2
17
- -4* 0
* 0
* S
b
* S
. I 0/
/
K
/~ zi''I,.
70 I S
* v w w_ u_ _ w S S S S S_ S
140 . -
a 5
* C4) C- -C .
0 r~
U:.- I c
0 0T 444
lp lp - 4p 4p4p
p .
I I S
- 4%~ *
I.
V
I 0
* S
FI I
9
4- * ..
C 1 7
--- 4.- r -
-. I - p Sa, -~ - -J-.-.9.~
4,' *-
* * * - - *-Y 0
F -47 [.jS. W mu: . +4 -
S4' *4*~p F * 9
-4.* 0 1 - -- f 4. I 0
* S S S S S S S S S 5 5 S S S 5 5__________ - -,1
- - -. '4 . . 4 - ,- - .4- - - *4~ 4 4 - . - - - . - - - -- 4 - - - - -- - - '-~--
0~~ 0bc .. / I
I S
a - A~~]
~1S
K C
* S
S
7'
* S
* .01;j ]
* 0
* 5 6 0 6 6 0 0 0 S S 0 0 0 0 0 S 0
Sj I03 m 3C
u 2 1 E
.. .0 m
o- wr04 ,a,
. I 1a 0 a0
o .0L4~ .0r
3 lw .4 l'l1r- ol .1oI0 M~ .. X04
0 r40 0wa U 04
~~~~ .10 '0~0- 00 r~0 . .0I- 0 0 -
U. a4 > c)~ 04
~~0.X0 ~ -- f11 )
AMJ Mn0 00
Z. 0 0 000 .- 1
610 0 0 0 -~~
-~ ~ wa0 0
*l 0
-4 3 -eNO
14)4. ~
0 14
Iz 1.
0 ca4r0-0 .W 1
C.*o 0 *o.s 4 . l
W. 0 41 ) (D '
U-- 4)0 0 WV
0SV)W (.0. *%
W0 %. )4 $.s44))0 4.
': 000$4P.) -4
w >0(: 0
r' 0 - . 094
v 0
"WW w ow 010 0 -3
'-4 (44224) >. 0 4(
0 (dC So 0 )
04 ~ 0(P4)0( 0 u
0, 0
0 0 P 0 Q)'-4 4) f- 0 ca c CD t
DItix 3 0 0 4) 4-' V -4) 04 0 " S-. F(.-'u(m
0 ML'- 3 >ca c )- 0 0 r. 0 .w m k '04 E0'0 "04' 0
''c w 000 0
w 0. 0 C C.
- - - - - - - - - - - -. - - ~ -. -. 71' - - -. -.
i-s
.~ 0
4
'Iv
N
I 0
'i--IN
* S
i S
0
K? 0
Ir 0
I 5
S
S w w u S S S S S S S S 5 5 5 5
- - -
4.'4.0
I a4 0.4 0
-~ C. I0444 C
T o ~.400 .' .
'03~q 0.4 4 4
H0.3- X 4 xPc
44 04"4440.-4O *0 440 m '0 .
_~~~~~~~~ I.0 4 0 0 4 . 0. ~ 4 .44 .. 444 .48.40 r
4~~~C I2( ii
.44.44044-- r040 -.
a,01 01 0) 4 N
a 0 00 -4 3
14 0 14 ' 4
N~~~~ 000 0 . . 0 J.
0' 0
114 01 0 0> 01 N0 t o" I 0 14w.
w)1 0 1u00 m40 r11 a
W-m4 .10 - CL Z- m 04 00Un~~~~~L x .' .4 011 1
a1 w .. 40 0 0 -. N 41 N
CM v -03 WO c1,- o0 N O0m04 . 0 m W v 0-4 1 01 0)
0WW 4. 0.' m.' m- 0 wI ' .- 04 .'W WW .0 001N .1 r4 w 06
C) 0 4-4 01A Wm ) 4 0Q. aw 0. c 41 W>
4 QW01F 1 W NC
S 0 'a Q a -W N0 wN w4 0 0 m a414 3E 3 4 0 30. 0 0 07 N - ,o 1:3 a
U4 N 01 .1 NN 4 0 4: 0 0 0) 0 -rcm 0 5W W.. 0 41W-
_~~~ ~~ 4;0N C~E N N
__ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ c 01 0 1 0 . 00
m -O w- V0 0 .1 a. 04 -1 1> ~ w 0. 01 '0 .1 3.
C w 0 0 urn 0 ON0 14 01 . 3.
~1411~W4 , N 0' 0 CIO1 .1N A.10 O 4.42o 0 W- 00 w1 -40 1 O
t,4 WU )b 0) 041 . 0' -0 0 0
q, r M 4.. 0 ~ W -40. 0.0 t. ti.- u) 0
M. C. 4. 444 0 010- 011--0 4 -,
a, IV4 N -0 a, 0
0. 4 4 0 N 4 )0 :50 4 40 . 4 0
It4 0, c: "0I0 0 W01.
1 040 .4"' 0 1 4414 -Is 0340-0 '00 1C. 00011l -00 O W2
0 '0, WW Q-4a w114.. 06 '0 0 0
- -40 000.41 .0 .a04.00 0 o 1.0 410
41 0 0'0 '01 ri-x414 01 0 0 .4101 6m 01 4 '-.01 01 0.0. .0
40 600 41 w004164 44 0 1 41 Do 0 401 ~ ~ ~ w 000-i , 0110 0a,-444. -44 4. 1 1
t 4 -4444 '0:05 .- 1 N00 v 4 0 1 .
01- 0N 0 16.0 t, . 10 0 1 14 0 > 0
-. --- - . -' - - -.- - '--. '-, -p-- -~.- -- '-* -:%~-~ - - -
C S
V. .,.Q -t.
I -. .;:-~ K'
N
N
I 0Li
3 In ~; ~ t. -. -
- . (312, :223 -
* I S
IS
p- <. 0 p 5tfl
-4
S
* C- I S
C
C
I I S
o 5 L~J p 5
* 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
n 0)
ca-E
rE
r
a--
o 1-0
- - • ""-~
*o 0
-, .--
. -.-.
z.-: :...• o -. " j
,a .
---- -.
- j o
_ o:.
,
, - ' ".. . . -- - -- .. . . .. .
- -- - . .. . =.,-..-
' ' " -.
- - + , .
-S,.- -- 5.. 0
+ 5 5: -, .
• 5:..
0,,1 " 00.' 40 ( S o .
C. + .Os,-+--. .. ..+ . ..... . , + 5 : - -
+ ,+, + 4 5:,5:
- 0 I++.. , . . .. C + o 0.1 ,, -.' 5 : 5. . . Z
- C,, t,
'U.. .+ : .. . . . 50.0,. r 05 .0
: : ~ i+ . . . . . . .. -.2-, -+
. .. . . .. . .. . . . ., + :.... 5 . 0.. 0 -. . . . '. 0. 0
.. . " ' : . .--. J
* 0 S 0 0 0 S 00 0 0 00 0
4- 4- ~4 'p 04- ' .'.
6' 4-
- 4- 0 :1F 4
I S
4 .4 I S
* SI , . 4- C-
- 4- ... 4- ~ 4-
-~ <<1-1
* S
6, 4- r4- CO 444-
.~ 4- 6,C'440C 44~
4-444-S 0,444 4,44-6,4-446,4'(~40 0414- "6,*-4-C--6,r
'4- 44-4-'44'4-4-46 9
4- 4-) 4-- F' ~ ~ 4-
440' 4-44-4-4
4-4 4-4-44-44344
* "04-4-6, I S
4, 4 44-
".44 4,4'444-, 7.., *1
0 0 0 0 0 0 6 5 0 9. .15 0
- . . . .
I ~. ~ p ___
- . - I -
* - I-
S S
C 0- C C C t 4:5 S . - *- C C *- *- 4- *- 44 -
- - 4 . 4- 4 - ~- C - - 4: C -
-............... C C
0I 0
4 ~. 4 '' *
* . . - . . C~ S
* 0
* . . .. 4 0I *- -. 1 4 * 4
---- 4
* 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 5 0 0 0
* 'C . *
- ~ - - - - -
* -. -- - -- -. '-:--7-----~;---~---~.-'7
* S
-S
I-
0
S
* 0
U
~ 4q~~ ~54 -.@1 ~
- ~'2
'4 ~ ;~~~44 ~ 044-".... ~ ~ -4
~ .. ~ ~ .2~,ii ~ U
5 4',. .... 4I~ 4' .4 0
~7 4, .40.44 *4
r. E ~ 0.4 44 04, '44' * -4
F? P'~ I~4'~~u ~ .4
I, -~ .4~1K * 0
'4 ~44
* S S 0 S S 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 50~~
' S)
Is4
a, 0 0 0 .C
D v
,.. n),. .) .
: 0_ o to " .4). 0 - . -0
o . 0=- 5. 4-
4) 0 00 4 ."
..0 . - C .-
. - . 0. .4".4 ? ,; - i)
=" . 0 0 *.Co
0o 0 4) " 4) 0' 5. 5. ... .. 0. 0 .44)C- ... 0) ... . ..
i I"4)4) 5:. , ) , o.,,
8-2I
• • • • • • • • • .O S
. .- .C . .. .. . . . ...L; - -. . -. . .. - . " :
Ar'-'2-, .-' 4' 02-'
.0(C) C) 0t~, 4-.
- .C r 2 0. to :1o 202
>~O Co >4 C)o 20.
C)044
'to- - C) -4-
'0 2
I 0
40
022
* S
I 0
IS
>0~4 - .2 0 C C>' C
*2jt CC 3.~ 4,4, 4,... -
CC2 2 2o 2 C4032.4 C 22 4,0 - t.'. 0
"'-C 0 0-43 C .22 - 24 >'~
44 to L.2 .20 4 2 2 2 40 40
0. - 22222C 02C 2 2..> 0 -~1.'> - 022 - VOCO .2C > 40 C-.>0-4.24'.4 2 3.4 2 - 4.00 9:o CC2 2C'-4.4 "to . 2'
020 0 .22'4240 2 ''0 4 22 0.2 to 0'4C . - 94, '-'"22 C 4, 00 C 0 >. . -.0 ~42.2'.4 .4.4.2 C2, '~.2 2 4 4,
4 2 C'.'4' 0 204.0 - 2 4C.CC "24.'00 00~-2 2.2. 0. 0.2.2o 2 toXCo 04.0 2 0004, 2.2 .20 0 -00 a
O 0OC'40 042400 CO 2 C .202 pI~
0o~ >4' .0 4,2 CO )SCC~.. 0 40 C24o -'-4
0-. to00.-~ 04> 4,2 4. IC?>- 4,0 .204,0. 402 204004$0> .. '0'..42..00 .2
24.0 .2 02442 0.-C 2 204 ye.* 0.4 -, 2C.C 2 CC 0'4.4 IC 22
00 04004"- ..- 0 4, 04' -t 22.--' 0 000'. 40to CC 2
.0 ... C4'4..40C...0 C.00 22 - .. 4, .. co '~ 4, 04, 2tootoO .400' 0Q.~ 044 22
to 4.4 - 2. 2.240 .24,22 222- 4,2 0
200 - 03.20 4.'.22'-' 0
240 0 o2 042 .2 >2 o44 2 .2Z - .. 2 04 CC4, to .44 I"'-.222 2 04>402 20 C ..' .430-' 0 20.4C.44,.42 .2 4,
4,24>0 .444 4,0. 04
3 0.4 00' '.49004 2 ...4 0 .4.2>. 2.34,042 4,4,2 4,44'.. 4,2
2 .20.22 24,24, 2...> 402 - 32 C044,.2 .4 2 0 2.20 -~4>'.-CO 0
.4 44> '2. >020>... 0 2 224. C. 2-4 >4' 4.20 .4$4, .2
:1> 1 2.2-4.0. 0-24, 2042 -2
* ~It' P 04...'-4
-.---1tI 2,
S 0 6 0 6 S 0 0 0 0 S 0 0 S S S S S
- - - - 'r w -. "-w-r->" . .*"%'
:. W. ... 0 --
u -0 U 1
_iu :0 4) c:
M: () m , v 0 .
:. ID 0 :1 E.S
z m2 >
ii -" . . ,
E 0
0EJ- 0
. .J0.-.0,
0' 0v .o ..
-4 m 104= a ... •
,o .- 0-1"
-,O•o o
S r-.i--.. .,.14> .. :• . . 00•1 .::- . 0'
" .cW. : .. .. -: : , : , . ." : c" : ' ? : ' .> S. . . .i ' ' . . _"
* ,* , *~. . .- ~. ~W *.q n~pp ~ U ~ ~ ~r--- - r .p .- , ~ 'r r Y ~ -iw --r r ' '"
01
ItV. ut ct It -" 0t .2 4 . ..
HU 0
cr. .
0~ 022 1 12 . 2
a) 0
w .2 .2w
* a)
c~ cc
-S - .
I, S
* C ,t c It
0. oor G--
VI-I - , t
I-0 E .G -G
w~~ oo 33I t c
to.20c a 0
ElE 003
o c
0 m
uO.- 0' 0
aO 0 tL
CC L ii-oCi
o S - N
00CU
oOCO 00 0
-, 0 i .4w0 E-g
C rii 0
0r -00 L 20 .4 r -T r imw i m W i l O i
C 0 > iL a, . O ' 4
iii 1 1 Eu0L - O 0
C~~~~~~ -c0 - o ' 4 - . 0 . OC~~~~~ 04L Q 0 3- V- - LS~~~~~~ ~ 0 l 0-i- & 2 s-I~
00 0-i * Ci-0 u.- a,0 4 i i .
* ~~0 04 . - O 0 C i
w 0
r
(a8-27
0.0
CC~~ 01 U
>1 I f ~ 0)- 0
LC x 0.C
WIC WW. 0- -
0 L c W t W O>IC
c Z 80 ~ C.-C.- ~ .- EE
I~.A jC 0-. t, gj
Wi lf co -u ~K ~ :4-~ Cx *- 00 2 8)~ ga~ 8Ct
-"Eg J -f 9 0 -P-- E ac.
t Sg, E. -f~;
CC- - '0 _0 o ,
A >. aC; t 0 0~
* U S 5 0 _ 0 0 0 60 00 0r 0 0_
0 0
I C'
1. Q, '
CL.C 0 0, X.
a. 0.: D E -'&-a.-- a
1 000a. - S
0 C'0-rn8C La . V $
1 > r L 'd -4
C -4 aa+' La
cd '- CC 0 0W'- 0 ln '.. Q
0 0C0 04C 0
0...~ U)4M 0 C 0'''
L ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 03- >V'C 0'4' .4 0-
.04 ~. L ,O C
0 OL , I%. C CL0.w 0CC0.0 > C- 00C
I, F 0 0 W-CC 0 .C-
0 .1 C ~ C . > ' C fs-' 0 0c -'C w42- . LT
0 a, 0af.4 x 0 w QLCu
0 00 aa--t 0K.0oS 0 C L0 C0 C a' L-.
04' - 44 L
zo 4
Li 'C S 0C)(44
2-
fl. ~
E~;U S S.
- 0 4:2
0S SO
Co
- (4on S S
hi SOr
IS
* V
5 5
A)I S
S p 5
U S S S S S S S S S 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
K *0
.~,. .01 00, ~.0 00,~ ~
I S
0~
C *t~'~ ~
N ~ *xu ~ o.-.4 I SC
C- C0~ ~j ~C0~ 0-. C
0 ~ .0.0 .0~c0~
o 0.0 01 ~ 00. ~01~ 3000 30
- I 0
I.
4 5
I S
I 0
S I 0
S S S S S S S S S 5 5 5 5 5 S 0
1~~I h1 - w --- rj - 1
u o Mt
D- - &.- Dm c
o~ o 2t 3 23 C
z 2C0 vC c
S2~~~~ >C2. W
c* 1--' 10C 1. C-.140c2~~~E-z 2u.t. 2 I'* 5 COC--'2 C CC4.-'d '
*~l C-d C3 2 ' 2 -H. i
I SS
033
I S
Ca -I0- .-- -4
wLG LLo
Co O o> 4-
0- C 04. 4 1.4
CC .C -0 - . '
w~Im
-v: I'C4 C cC I >5 0a Q4-C L ,- L C C' O C - C E
0-C O '4 - a 0 a 4 so C40 C4- O ' 0- 2 1 'rC- 0 ' 0.Cx.'4' 4
-'4-0 C -E-- - az, C
a-- -- u -,' C' 4 * 4C
u-0- C - LL U s
4-~ ~ C X-C4 Za 4' a C
71f ~-
ac
94
F: E
1/77
0 0
CL X, :3
I>in l
4 0
VS
* - '3,-i
I 0
* = -
I' I.* I.
CaI.-C-?
U'U
E *~ * ** SCCa-
Li SC
Ui0 -
* N
* 5 2 p 0
(U. -~ - -L. 0 2 2
2
cn~>
* 0-~'1
* 9 0K
* 0 I
ISA
* 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 S S
012
aI m
zS
4) w. 4 . . .
is 4 0v' 4 4 03 :5 444 m w 41 .0 Q~00 .
-- 0 IL 0 03 d4 m , 0:-.o 1 04 4 ) 44 . 4 4 44 > 1
w 0 ) .0 S4 V 44 u .
p0-'4 a a a) -0 0 0 40
0 . 4 0 00 40 0 .0 .4 .4 0 0 4 4 Cm. * 0 .
0 a, 4
o 0tp 0. 0
0' $44 0 0. 0'4 .C r 4 . 4 . . 0 U-A 0 w 4
04 44
.4 0
0 40E- 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 -4 0 0 10 n 4 w4 0' . 4 0 0 4 4 0'
04 44 44 0
U 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 t .0 44 .
04~- g 4 4 40 - 0 to)
N 0 ~ 4 - m 44 0 0) 0 .0 0 0 . V c
0 E41~~. 0.C 0
0 a 4 44 0 .0>, 44 4 0 0 0 4
r- 0 04 44 0 ) M0l0 W4 w w 00 U * 4
0 41 0 0 u ' m
O.0'. 04 0. 4 C -. 44 0 0.0 u u 0 a 4 A .0
I L
0 01Z OClCL U -4 0.
0 -4 o .
44 000 0.
IU0 -. 0 0 z -
00.. 040444
0.~L >. 0 U4
> CL 0 .0 I0
M00 I -.4 444-UV0. 004v 0 0 '4
4 ~ ~~0 C.4 ~'0 . 0 4
000 04 U, r4 4S04). 4044 '- 44 0 (A
44C0 - 4.4 w .. -' 0 -I
T0. 0 ,0 .
C00 r 4 00r
0.4- 0 44W0444 4 >.0'4
u04 -44400
-0 4, 0 00z0. Q E 1w~ u i-0 0a).) 400-4I00 0 0 440 4 4.4.r40w '00.) u - E a) w04 4 ) 4n44 4r . - - C0. 0-1~0 0 44 00 4 0
0 44 00 r 404
44- -4 00 00 0 440
44 0. 04 >044 0 .0-38.
- - • , • - %- -
Kz C~ 0
0. 4) o . _
a' r- v Q 0 4) t0>v0 a.0 c 0 w 4.
.: . a.$.4 4 I 4 E44.
'> C.) ol O O o. a,
c)'V - 004) 1) ., 4) W)T4
2 .) 5.s 0 3 45> :14.4 ))50 45 4),.-4om, -04 o.-4 =.0*o 4
l~~l. .00 o+. ca:O+a t-K. 0I 0.C-) .- 4) .444- .- ) 4- -
03...... 5.4 -4 )))4 .* . 0,°"' . ._
. - - 4.. . .. 4)5 E"*-5C4) 0
+ oo, 9 Cdoo +. w+ o_+ $ + ...,'
5.. r- w - 0.14 -... 54 r " u O 5E./ r0 .4). 5-* I) cV 4)54 w)~4 C), o .uc w
r~ ~ ~~~o >> crwIoa
0+ ooD- $ o oH-
7: r- a, m O5 CD 0 4> ) lQ ) -w 0 a
) b- E : M- .C. -0
o o .'. ...0 0a w
34 04445..o4V 4. 0 4,4.*44.-...-.-.. -. o i-
0 0'-j 2 5 400-3.)I4
o o -L 0 , ,
" +44 ,404) . 4 .- .4 5.. 404
L.3- 4 - •0 ..4 4)4
,L :5 ,10 wc +o w >oow °o C o o 4)1
LJ.J ~ 2 .5. . 0 -. 44) .- , 4.-- (. O20O-
.~r o+ w _c r
,-. - . . > $-. .0 4 .. . o
0,; ou
o .. a0 ) o )o
4 . 5 .. z0 > w o c5. 44
g~~c " o w++ oEgX . :- ) . .4-. . 0 4)44 *44 )),5. 4
r0,- 0 5.. .- 44- 0 4 om) 40 ) (. o o.5-t,
0< 4 -SW _4 "0.44.44) 4
I o D .
4.00~ 0544)). r)- 0 >1 u)4 4) 44 cu,
4) 4 • o 045. 4 " "-4 04 >4)0 ." .. . . .- . : . . .. .. .0- " - . . . • ) -,-.': .0 . ' . 4 , 4)4. .--. , .- .. :4. .0:- - . ..-') , , . -- -)--.-- _. •
4)~ o))544 w4 r-:w- 5.).>4 3.-44
> Id
0 o)
In 0 o0o r
4) 0 a4 0, 5. -4
0c o0 w~ o4 4) .-0 a) w ) M ) o4 on
4 4) C C- > 4) .
*4 w 4) 10 a o 0
4) 4) w 4) 0 * ) 4 . ))4d w) .4 o0 C) 0' C0 Q-. w 'a
o 4 Q0 Q0 4 )* 44
4).~ ~ 4). 0 4 0 4 * .
w4 a0 a 4 4 . o v. 4) *
4) Q . 4 . 4) ( 4 o0c)
>40 4 ) 4 4 4 ) 0'0~ ~~~~~~~ o4S 0 5 . 4 ) .4 4 4 4
o) 0 a, c40 * . . 4 ) 4 ) *4)~~~ 4) w) .0 4 . 4 4 )4)~~ 4) 4) c r0 4 . 0 0' 5 0
a4 u w- o4 M 4)c . 4
3~~~~~ ~~ 1?5 4 4) 4 4 . 4
22
o 4-
d -ad0 *~ -~ 2k. 00S 0 0~ di5 w *0 0 05 - U 00) 000.0 0. d,
0'V 00) C0 4. 30)dO OEo,,
-ooo~a g-~o.0,00 0,) ON 0,0 0-0
000 0.-FOcO- 0)0 0. to,.,0 000
I 2-.~fl00o oo- N- 2 --. 0 OOES 00 0 I
4 *,0to 00 Ed,.,< .,.., 0.0 d.00 0~-0 0
.00 -. 0.0soc ~ ~ j 0
-0 00 0 00. I 0S 0 ~
00.00 0) 0 0. 0 -o000) 0.00 0.
.0000.0,-otO 00000) ~0.d.0)00 0.00
- . - 0.0-tOO -0
I S
'-.0,0 00''0.0 0, 000 000
-0 0.00
0-0 0,0 .00lId 0 0 Ocod. 5 0 0
-'0 0 .0030 .00) 00.,0.00-o o0oa-0 -0 000 E005-~0 .0 000.003 0.'-' 0) 9
S
(3
C,,
C.)
* ii -. .- -. S
o 00
*
* S
0
* S S 0 0 0 0 0 S 0 0 0 0 0 0 S_ 0
r, E
m S
7'C
0 t0
V 8
4. ~ ~ l Zl 1*. 0 04 )0 J44. 4
410 44 4 4 1 4.).0 4)4
-~ ~~ ~~ 0 4.)O ~ 4
so4 U- 4L~~~~ 0.4 8 N.
444o2. 4... m ). . 44) . 4
'44)
0~~~~~~ A40.'44E-I
APPENDIX CLETTERS OF COMMENT
ON REVISED DRAFT EIS
w w w
i- .
U. S. Department of Commerce C-I
U. S. Department of Interior C-I
U. S. Coast Guard C-2
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency c-2
U. S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare C-3
U. S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service C-4
U. S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation
Service C-4 0
Honorable James B. Edwards, Governor, State ofSouth Carolina C-5
S. C. Water Resources Commission c-5
S. C. Water Resources Commission C-6
S. C. Department of Health and Environmental Control C-6
S. C. Department of Health and Environmental Control C-7
S. C. State Ports Authority C-7
S. C. Water Resources Commission C-8 0
S. C. Wildlife and Marine Resources Department C-8
S. C. Community Development C-9
D S
* 0
D S
S * S
3 0
~ S
S 0
4 pe
i S
I SO
I S 0
S S
I S
S S S
S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S
- .. mrr - - ~. -- - - rrrrrfl
* 0
S
* 0
e -'
*
a 0
9. 0
* S
* S
* 0 S
* 0 0 0 0 0 S 0 S 0 0 5 5 0 5 5 S S
I 0
rJ , -, C o
* o....,.,CL. 0
0~4 0J.--'-~-" .*O -~ I' 0 V.,0C~ U.-d ~C0C~.'1OJV V
corr>v-o- rCvilt.--.. -V.-.
U .-.. ,-.z,0 WC -..... irfl>.t,
Z VU0~'~ OC.-A~ ~K. S0 -o ~ C .,U0
OVOC I. .0C. Opi.00.0.GiV P40 .~C,0 V
z 00000 *.~ 0.0.00.00 0.0 Ca 0.00 to -rO.-' 44.t 'I .000.0,0 Os.C
o - itO C....- OCOVIO.-. 0-i.00ii .OCAtOC>.0 .0tOOLiai~ t'0a-0 0.0 Ja.-,
I- - >000 C., V ~.00,.0 .00000U CO.> ~4. -.4- ... 0 -0.0OH s0Vo~-0-.0. VOO-00....0
'C 00 Cafd.i..o P.O COCo. 000...or ~,0 U>0. 0~I.2 ~00. .0. '~ 0000 Ct PrOC P 0H ~..C
0: >0-0 - ~- Z 0'
t 00 ~ c.tC, 0 0S.
U ft 0' .. 0 aUa
o ~0 G.i-.C~ OPOl
z
E Ct U 5H o- 0 0 U 0
0: - OiH.4..
H 00 0 0-Ut ~
0.0 .$0.-'0.fl .0
" tiCOEA .. '0 COU C. C--. 0CC
C QC~,1Caa .-. :-ria000.t.
P .. 2.C0.-~0.0.-.U0 0-0-a
04 ~.0.o-..-o dooto-. OSC.r-' OoOawsC>OS0
C 0
* ~~0 00
0
S C., \j
0Li .9
00
fl -
* 0
I ~ ~ - ~L.
* 0-2 0
* 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 S 0 0 0 0
4- Na, .
-o a,' , ,=.,-i..
a us
. 0 0 a. 0.
m o . l
5 0
g " "a. . . g 4 . . .. = 2 4 U p
0 0 , .) .
c-3340 4
0i
a3 00 L V 0
4) r 0 0
04 0) NOa a .4 o01)C
w w
sc .. ',
,44~ 0 70 O8 - w A
Z" I . ... . .4.E
. •.) .4- --a1004 N .3410 so r ,... f;'
44 0 ~ 0 .0 >0t. 3 a
0~ ~ 0 m 0 0 4C
.0)0 0 )4) -41 0 '14
.4-a- 0 .. 0U'0 N0w al 0 0 4. . 40-
u 4 7. 4))4 1114
4)4.44 OI... 0'o
* -144)4 w)00N 44 aN M4 ~1at 0)4 4O
rN 0 u4 9:
).4..'1l4 40.-~~ 00400c-3"
0 o . a .
.0 0
I e o
c.40 0-
404 4). w
x~ >',. o ..
0 0 4 0
0.0 0
0 0
u o
0 w40 4
z 4 0,
... 444'
U \,k' 0 4 4 4 4
4)4J - -'. 0.. 0
0 '4 -0
* .t.(71
." -, 444 .44' 4,&
'.4440 -4 0.0.4C-4
, • 3• • ' , " .0 ) " -
044 ."4- ,4 - '0,,4._- . _ .. . . . ..'4 0 . .. . . . . . . . .43 0. .. .. .'44' "00 4 '-
r - . 2 .
7, 4~
'S ~ ,
0 4- 3 44p
3 ~ ~ ~j4 L
-cc c3 ~ E~~
C C
a - L0C~ > c
c 2 5 1
4C
C~ U >C' C7: C
t2 C C,
~~LLt.F- Ln C f
* wrr~ -- -rj-i- ra" C C -
IL
I c.J
Z~ U I
-- ~~ 0"i" 1' 10 0 V0i
2J -7
F A-"'-" I
c-"~) t ~3 . I *0 ,
0E 16.
.. .. .. ..-- - -- W, '/ : - -
- -) . . . . - " - " '" '* Li . lj f.c C .- i
--" .
r-.1 . -I
,-5 " - " -- "'
-- --.. C , ;242
• -" S.--
II
I] ., , . . L . , . -"
10cc aco.
}-- C. t. - , c
N -. -. -
L . C' " -J
: ' , ":
-- F,: , - . -.. . .
6 .. .. , . . * -, .
.. o1
I S
V.. Hr rn Cc..L.'~ I
C-> 4' HS 'AU - ti- .- Q- I 0
I I
7. 1
V Li ii 7.'- I S
U Li 'NIi
- C .-' F. Cl '~1,:> .- 1>L 7.- Ccj .C-4.-C-- -
-~ H -- Li ,:~."5 ~&t~'C- >7. -,
- - - - .--.--. Cc~r-- .t-.
Li. c CC-C- s...fl--Q7..- C- - I 0
0 WC'SQC7.U 0 .0 *. 2 V
* I- --
iji
I .), I:
I ~
cz..., 'k' &. , I'I * .1C --.--- .-------- (*' I -~
I 0
I I
II
L - .
4 .,
Ii Sit
5' I S11
1 ) tED - S 9 0- .5II
* 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 _ S 0
----- ~-~
F.
0
,~ 0
I 0
4 I 0
( ~'~I ~ I
_______ Q) jJ -.
5~ 'I
- (4, I'-'S 0
a
* 1 I S
dI - 11
~II
'-'It'*-sa a .~ c-' -~
C)
I .-. '55-C.' CF J
-- 'cc L..( rn~C. ~ a
C', H 0
'I ! , Ocna O.-t.
* 3 3 S S S S S S S S S S 5 0 0'p.
* 04
0~
T, o
C-9
w Rp v0
. - ' -, u v % - . - . -".= - -' , --- -- - . .-' , - -' -' -. --. ' - .-. - o . - - . :
FILMED
2-85
DTIC