Water quality assessment, FY 1986-1987

[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]

Statewide 1 9T DL"

Water Quality Assessment
FY 1986-1987

A Report to Congress Pursuant to
Section 305 (b) of the Federal Water Quality Act

g @ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~C-OASTAL ZONTE
INFORM^ATION CLEINITER

Prepared by the Office of
Environmental Quality Control
( TD South Carolina Department of
224 Health and Environmental Control
S. 6 Columbia, South Carolina
K55
C 1 988
,-j

WATER QUALITY ASSESSMENT
FY 1986-1987

Prepared and Edited by:
Sally C. Knowles

May 1988

U. S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE NOAA
COASTAL SERVICES CENTER
2234 SOUTH HOBSON AVENUE
CHARLESTON , SC 29405-2413

Division of Water Quality and Shellfish Sanitation
Bureau of I-ater Pollution Control
South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control

Property of Cc Library

PREFACE

This report was prepared by the South Carolina Department of Health and

Environmental Control (DHEC) as a requirement of Section 305(b) of Public Law

100-4, The Water Quality Act of 1987, and as a public information document.

The docume nt presents a general assessment of water quality conditions and

water pollution control programs in South-Carolina.

The determinations of surface water quality were based on data collected by

DHEC during fiscal years 1986 and 1987 at ambient water quality monitoring

stations. Other information in this report was obtained from individuals

associated with monitoring and control programs in the Department.

Comments or questions related to this report should be addressed to:

Bureau of Water Pollution Control

S.C. Department of Health and Environmental Control

2600 Bull- Street

Columb~ia, South Carolina 29201

Table of Contents

Page

Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i

List of Tables . ........ . ....*** . v

List of Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix

Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 . . . . . . . .

1.0 South Carolina Statistics

1.1. Atlas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

2.0. Water Classifications and Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

2.1. Surface Water Classes ..................... 5
2.2. Summary of Classified Uses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

3.0. Evaluation Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

3.1. Waters Assessed . . . . . . 8. . .
3.2. Determination of Attainment of Classified Uses ........ 8
3.3. Determination of Attainment of 1983 Goals of the
' Clean Wlater Act .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
3.4. Determination of Surface Waters Affected by Toxics . . . . . . 14

4.0. Surface Water Quality

4.1. Rivers and Streams . . . . . . . . . ... ... . . . . . . . . . . 16

4.1.1. Summary of Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

4.2. Lakes and Reservoirs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

4.2.1. Summary of Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
4.2.2. Clean Lakes Assessment ................. 54

4.3. Tidal Saltwaters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

4.3.1. Sumniary of Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
4.3.2. Mlanagement of Shellfish Growing Waters . . . . . . . . . 69
4.3.3. Estuary Case Study - Stono River . . . . . . . . . . . . 88

4.4. Toxic Pollutants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94

4.4.1. Metals in Water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
4.4.2 Organics in Water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
4.4.3. Fish Kills and Fishing Bans or Advisories . . . . . . . 97

4.5. Public Health Concerns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100

4.6. Special Areas of Concern . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101

Page

4.7. Nlonpoint Source Pollution Assessment. . . . . . . . . . . . . 104

4.7.1. Mlethodology to Determine Waters Impacted by
lionpoint Source Pollution . ..... . 104
4.7.2. List of Waters Impacted by Nonpoint Source Pollution . . 108
4.7.3. Groundwater Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110

5.0. Groundwater Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . ......129

5.1. General Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129
5.2. Mlajor Sources of Contamination. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129
5.3. Location of Groundwater Contamination . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131
5.4. Contaminating Substances..... 131
5.5. State Strategies to Alleviate Groundwater Problems . . . . . . 132

6.0. Jater Pollution Control Programs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134

6.1. Point Source Control Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134

6.1.1. Municipal Facilities. . . . . . . . . . . . . ....134

6.1.1.1. Construction Grants Program. . . . . . . . . . 134
6.1.1.2. Pretreatment Program and Toxics Control. . . . 137
6.1.1.3. Stormwater Controls . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137
6.1.1.4. Strategies Planned to Improve the
Mlunicipal Facility Program . . . . . . . . 138

6.1.2. Industrial and Agricultural Facilities . . . . . . . . . 139

6.1.2.1. Industrial Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . 139
6.1.2.2. Agricultural Facilities... .. . . . . . . . . 139
6.1.2.3. Toxics Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140

6.1.3. Wasteload Allocations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .141

6.1.4. Permit Compliance and Enforcement . . . . . . . . . . . 142

6.1.4.1. Compliance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142
6.1.4.2. Enforcement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143

6.2. Nonpoint Source Control Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146
6.2.1. General Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146
6.2.2. Section 319 Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146
6.2.3. Section 208 Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148
6.2.4. Section 401 Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149
6.2.5. Shellfish Sanitation Program . . . . . . . . . . . . .150
6.2.6. BMP Requirements on NPDES Permits . . . . . . . . . . . 150
6.2.7. Other State and Local Government Involvement . . . . . 152

Page

6.3. WJetlands Programs .................... ..154

6.4. Surface Water Monitoring Program. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157

6.4.1. Special JWater Quality Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158

6.5. Water Reclassifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .162

6.6. Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .165

iv'

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE PAGE

2.1.A. Summary of Classified Uses ............... 7

3.2.A. Summary of State Numeric Standards ........... 12

3.2.B. Criteria for Attainment of Designated Uses ....... 13

3.4.A. 304(a) Criteria for Priority Pollutants ........ 15

4.1.A. Attainment of State Classified Uses, Rivers
and Streams, FY 1986-FY 1987 .............. 16

4.1.B. Attainment of CWA Goals, Rivers and Streams,
FY 1986-FY 198 ...................... 17

4.1.C. Probable Causes of Partial or Non-Attainment
of Classified Uses, Rivers and Streams
Statewide, FY 1986-FY 1987 ............... 17

4.1.D. Probable Sources of Partial Non-Attainment of
Classified Uses, Rivers and Streams
Statewide, FY 1986-FY 1987 ............... 18

4.1.E. Attainment of State Classified Uses and the
1983 Federal Goal, Freshwater Rivers and
Streams, FY 1986-FY 1987, Pee Dee Basin ......... 20

4.1.F. Attainment of State Classified Uses and the
1983 Federal Goal, Freshwater Rivers and
Streams, FY 1986-FY 1987, Santee-Cooper Basin ..... 26

4.1.G. Attainment of State Classified Uses and the
1983 Federal Goal, Freshwater Rivers and
Streams, FY 1986-FY 1987, Edisto-Combahee
�Basin ......................... 41

4.1.H. Attainment of State Classified Uses and the
1983 Federal Goal, Freshwater Rivers and
Streams, FY 1986:FY 1987, Savannah Basin ........ 44

4.2.A. Attainment of State Classified Uses, Lakes and
Reservoirs, FY 1986-FY 1987 .............. 48

4.2.B. Attainment of CWA Goals, Lakes and Reservoirs,
FY 1986-FY 1987 .................... 48

4.2.C. Probable Causes of Partial or Non-Attainment
of Classified Uses, Lakes Statewide,
FY 1986-FY 1987 .................... 49

TABLE PAGE

4.2.0. Probable Sources of Partial or Non-Attainment
Classified Uses, Lakes Statewide,
FY 1986-FY 1987 .................... 49

4.2.E. Attainment of State Classified Uses and the
1983 Federal Goal, Lakes and Reservoirs,
FY 1986-FY 1.987, Pee Dee Basin . . . . ........ 50

4.2.F. Attainment of State Classified Uses and the
1983 Federal Goal, Lakes and Reservoirs,
FY 1986-FY 1987, Santee-Cooper Basin ......... 51

4.2.G. Attainment of State Classified Uses and the
1983 Federal Goal, Lakes-and Reservoirs,
FY 1986-FY 1987, Savannah Basin ........... . 53

4.2.H. Lake Name, Location, and Indication of Public
Ownership ...... ................. 54

4.2.1. Ranking of Major Lakes by Trophic State ........ 57

4.2.J. Ranking of Minor Lakes by Trophic State 58

4.2.K. Publicly Owned Lakes with Impaired
Recreational Uses - Major Lakes ............ 59

4.2.L. Publicly Owned Lakes with Impaired
Recreational Uses - Minor Lakes ............ . 60
4.3.A. Attainment of State Classified Uses, Tidal
Saltwaters, FY 1986-FY 1987 ... ........ . . . 61
4.3.B. Attainment of CWA Goals, Tidal Saltwaters,
FY 1986-FY 1987 .................... 61

4.3.C. Probable Causes of Partial or Non-Attainment
of Classified Uses, Tidal Saltwaters Statewide,
FY 1986-FY 1987 .................... 62

4.3.0. Probable Sources of Partial or Non-Attainment
of Classified Uses, Tidal Saltwaters Statewide,
FY 1986-FY 1987 .................... 62

4.3.E. Attainment of State Classified Uses and the
1983 Federal Goal, Tidal Saltwaters,
FY 1986-FY 1987, Pee Dee Basin ............. 63

4.3.F. Attainment of State Classified Uses and the
1983 Federal Goal, Tidal Saltwaters,
FY 1986-FY 1987, Santee-Cooper Basin .......... 64

TABLE PAGE

4.3.G. Attainment of State Classified Uses and the
1983 Federal Goal, Tidal Saltwaters,
FY 1986-FY 1987, Edisto-Combahee Basin . . . . . . ... 66

4.3.H. Attainment of State Classified Uses and the
1983 Federal Goal, Tidal Saltwaters,
FY 1986-FY 1987, Savannah Basin . . . . . . . . .... 68

4.3.I. Status of Shellfish Growing Areas in South
Carolina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... 71

4.3.J. Prohibited Shellfish Harvesting Areas in
Class SA Waters Due to Closed Safety Zones
Around Point Source Discharges . . . . . . . . . . . . 84

4.3.K. Prohibited Shellfish Harvesting Areas in
Class SA Waters Due to Closed Safety Zones
Around Marinas ..................... 85

4.3.L. Acreages of Shellfish Waters in Each Water
Use Classification .................. . 86

4.4.A. Waters Affected by Metals, Statewide,
FY 1986-FY 1987 ............ . ....... 95

4.4.B. Waters Affected by Organics, Statewide,
FY 1986-FY 1987 . . . . . ................ 96

4.4.C. South Carolina Fish Kills Attributed to
Toxics, FY 1986-FY 1987 ................ 97

4.7.A. Nonpoint Source Assessment ...... . . ....... 112

4.7.B. Watersheds with High Potential for NPS Runoff ..... 121

4.7.C. Ground-water NPS Assessment . . . . . . . . . . 122

5.2.A. Sources of Localized Ground-water Contamination,
South Carolina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 130

5.4.A. Substances Contaminating Localized Ground-water,
South Carolina . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . 131

6.1.A. Treatment Works Receiving Construction Grants
and Became Operational in FY 1986 and FY 1987 ..... 135

6.2.A. Existing and Recommended Nonpoint Source
Control Programs in South Carolina . . . . . . . ... 153

vii

TABLE PAGE

6.4.A. Water Quality Studies, FY 1986 and FY 1987,
South Carolina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160

6.5.A. Waters With Reclassifications Effective During
FY 1986-FY 1987 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163

viii

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE PAGE

3.1.A. South Carolina Department of Health and
Environmental Control Fixed Monitoring
Network Primary Stations ................

3.1.B. South Carolina Department of Health and
Environmental Control Fixed Monitoring
Network Secondary Stations ............... 10

4.3.A. Station Locations in Assessment Area,
A Water Quality Assessment of the Stono
River, Charleston County, South Carolina,
August 27-29, 1985 ................... 89

4.4.A. South Carolina Fishing Advisories,
FY 1986-FY 1987 .................... 99

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

South Carolina has approximately 9,900 miles of rivers; 963,000 acres of

lakes; and 2,155 square miles of tidal saltwaters. Water quality data

collected by the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control

during fiscal years 1986 and 1987 provided the data base for this assessment.

Physical, chemical, and biological data were available for 3,795 miles of

rivers; 405,555 acres of lakes; and 616 square miles of tidal saltwaters, and

the strategic location of the monitoring stations allows these data to provide

an evaluation of water quality statewide. Using criteria developed for this

assessment, these data were evaluated to determine if the water quality in

rivers, lakes, and saltwaters was suitable to allow attainment of State

classified uses and attainment of the fishable/swimmable goal of the Federal

Clean Water Act./

The'Depaftment of Health and En~iironmentail Control (DHEC) has promulgated

regulations which designate classified uses for each waterbody and establish

general rules and specific standards to protect these uses. Two major tenets

of'the regulations are that waters which meet standards shall be maintained

and waters which do not meet standards shall be improved.

The fishable/swimmable goal of the Federal Clean Water Act states "it is

the national goal that wherever attainable, an interim goal of water quality

which provides for the protection and propagation of fish, shellfish, and

wildlife and provides for recreation in and on the water shall be achieved by

July 1, 1983."

Approximately 90% of all waters in South Carolina have water quality

suitable for protection of and attainment of State classified uses. Based on

acreage and stream miles, more than 95% of all waters have water quality

suitable to protect them for either fishing or swimming, or both. The 5%

difference between waters meeting the Federal goal and waters meeting State

standards is primarily because some waters designated as Class SA, suitable

for shellfish harvesting, did not meet the more stringent State standard for

total coliform bacteria but did meet the fecal coliform criteria used to

determine if a waterbody was swimmable. The following tables show percentages

of waters in South Carolina where water' quality was suitable to allow

attainment of State classified uses and the Federal fishable/swimmable goal

during FY 1986 and 1987. Approximately 66% of South Carolina's rivers and

streams are Class B and do not have swimming as a designated use. This

resulted in 58% of the rivers attaining the swimmable goal although 85% of the

rivers partially or fully attained their classified uses.

Determination of Attainment of State Classified Uses

Attained Partially Attained Not Attained

Rivers 75% 10% 15%
Lakes 99% <1% <1%
Sal.twaters 88%'. 3% 9%.

Determination of Attainment of the 1983 Federal Goal

Fishable or Fishable and
Swimmable Swimmable Fishable Swimmable Not
Attained Attained Attained Attained Attained

Rivers 95% 55% 92% 58% 5%
Lakes 100% 99% 99% 99% 0%
Saltwaters 99% 93% 96% 96% <1%

In rivers, pollution from non-point sources was most responsible for

partial or non-attainment of State classified uses. In lakes, unknown sources

were most responsible for partial or non-attainment of State classified uses.

Non-point sources were the only sources for partial or non-attainment in tidal

saltwaters. The following table summarizes pollution source categories in

percentages responsible for partial or non-attainment of State classified uses

during FY 1986 and 1987. Less that 25% of all waters had water quality such
2

that State classified uses were not fully attained. Fecal col iformi

contamination was the most frequent cause for partial or non-attainment.

Point Source Non-Point
Discharges Sources Unknown

Rivers 23% 55% 22%
Lakes 21% 2% 76%
Sal twaters 0 100% 0

Toxic pollutants are not a problem in South Carolina surface waters.

Only 7% of the freshwaters, 2% of the lakes, and <1% -of the saltwaters

assessed had heavy metals in concentrations which exceeded EPA criteria

recommended to protect aquatic life. PCB's, pesticides, and organics were not

detected in the water column at any location in the trend monitoring network..

Approximately 86% of the State's coastal shellfish growing waters which

have shellfish harvesting as a classified use (Class SAA or Class SA) are

unconditionally approved for safe shellfish harvesting. Less that 1% of Class

SA waters are permanently closed to shellfish harvesting due to buffer zones

from' marinas or discha rges. When considering saltwaters in all use

classifications, -66% of the waters are unconditionally approved for safe

shellfish harvesting. Approximately 23% of the saltwaters are Class SB and

Class SC where shellfish harvesting for direct marketing is not a classified

use. Of these waters, 14% may be opened to harvesting under certain water

quality conditions or opened to harvesting for depuration or relaying.

The overall quality of ground-water in South Carolina is excellent;

however, there are 390 instances of localized ground-water contamination. The

Department has made an effort to educate the public about ground-water

contamination through its permitting process and by requiring the licensing of

well drillers, establishing well construction standards, and regulating

underground storage tanks.

South Carolina effectively regulates point source discharges to surface

waters through the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)

permit program. All public and private municipal facilities and industrial

facilities have NPDES permits which are reviewed and reissued periodically.

Departmental approval and implementation of industrial waste pretreatment

programs for publicly owned treatment works have improved water quality by

reducing toxic discharges from these facilities. Most point source

agricultural waste discharges have been eliminated through the issuance of

State construction permits which require alternate non-discharging treatment

systems.

Municipal. compliance has been a priority throughout the 1980's and South

Carolina has pursued compliance with National Municipal Policy mandates. The

Department has issued orders placing all publicly owned treatment works not

meeting final permit conditions on enforceable schedules to assure compliance

with final effluent limits. The Department has also taken necessary

enforcement action to assure effluent limit compliance -and maintenance of

water quality at industrial and private domestic facilities.

South Carolina's non-point source control strategy includes regulatory

and voluntary programs. DHEC is involved in non-point source pollution

control through water quality certification of Federal permits (mostly Army

Corps 404 permits) as required by Section 401 of the Clean Water Act,

stormwater control requirements on some NPDES and construction permits for

wastewater treatment facilities, and "best management practices" requirements

to control oil and hazardous and toxic substances at industrial facilities.

Numerous other State and local agencies are involved in non-point source

control programs.

1.0. SOUTH CAROLINA STATISTICS

1.1. Atlas

-State population: 3,347,000 (1985)

-State surface area (land): 30,203 square miles

-Number of River basins: 4 - Pee Dee, Santee-Cooper, Edisto-Combahee,
Savannah

-State surface area (water): 909 square miles

-Total river miles: 9,900 miles (on 1:500,000 scale map)

Border miles: 408 miles
Border waters: Chattooga River, Tugaloo River, Savannah River,
Lake Hartwell, Clarks Hill Lake, Lake Richard B.
Russell, Catawba River, Lake Wylie

-Number and acres of lakes and reservoirs:

10 - 1000 acres:. 1,400
492TqO-acres

greater than 1000 acres: 18
471,000 acres

-Area of tidal salt waters: 2,155 square miles

-Ocean coastal miles: 190 miles

-Area of freshwater wetlands: 4,200,000 acres

-Area of tidal wetlands: 500,000 acres

2.0. Water Classifications and Standards

South Carolina Regulation 61-68 entitled "Water Classifications and

Standards" identifies five classes of freshwaters, four classes of salt-

waters, and three classes of groundwaters. Each classification consists

of two parts: classified uses which must be protected and water quality

standards stringent enough to protect these uses. There are general

rules and standards applicable to all classes as well as the specific

standards for each class.

2.1. Surface Water Classes

Since this report is primarily a surface water assessment, only

the surface water classes are described.

CLASS AA - freshwaters which constitute an outstanding recrea-
tional or ecological resource or waters suitable
for drinking water with treatment as specified by
the Department - also suitable for uses listed in
Class A and Class B.

CLASS A-TROUT- freshwaters suitable for supporting reproducing
trout populations and a cold water balanced indi-
genous aquatic community of fauna and flora - also
suitable for uses listed in Class A and Class B.

CLASS A - freshwaters suitable for primary contact recrea-
tion - also suitable for uses listed in Class B.

CLASS B-TROUT - freshwaters suitable for supporting reproducing
trout populations and a cold water balanced indi-
genous community of fauna and flora - also suitable
for uses listed Class B.

CLASS B - freshwaters suitable for secondary contact recrea-
tion, as a source of drinking water after conven-
tional treatment, for fishing and tte survival and
propagation of a balanced indigenous aquatic com-
munity of fauna and flora, and for industrial and
agricultural uses.

CLASS SAA - tidal saltwaters which constitute an outstanding
recreational or ecological resource - also suitable
for uses lised in Class SA, Class SB, and Class SC.

CLASS SA - tidal saltwaters suitable for harvesting of clams,
mussels, or oysters for market purposes or human
consumption - also suitable for uses listed in
Class SB and Class SC.

CLASS SB - tidal saltwaters suitable for primary contact
recreation - also suitable for uses listed .in
Class SC.

CLASS SC - tidal saltwaters suitable for secondary contact
recreation, crabbing, fishing (except harvesting
of clams, mussels, or oysters for market purposes
or human consumption), and the survival and propa-
gation of a balanced indigenous aquatic community
of marine fauna and flora.

Table 2.1.A. summarizes the uses supported by each classification.

Table 2.1.A.
Summary of Classified Uses
South Carolina

Uses Use Classifications

Fish and Wildlife All classes
Domestic Water Supply All freshwater classes
Primary Contact Recreation AA, A-Trout, A, SAA, SA, SB
Secondary Contact Recreation All classes
Agriculture All freshwater classes
Industrial All freshwater classes
Navigation All classes
No degradation of existing uses All classes
No degradation of natural conditions AA, SAA

All waters in South Carolina are classified in Regulation 61-69

entitled "Classified Waters." If a specific waterbody is not listed

by name, it assumes the classification of the waterbody to which it

is tributary.

2.2. Summary of Classified Uses

Percent of Total Measured on 1:500,000 scale map

Use Classification Rivers Lakes Tidal Saltwaters

Class AA .1% c1% --
Class A-Trout q1% 0 --
Class A 33% 96% --
Class B-Trout 0 0 --
Class B 66%� 3% --
Class SAA -- -- 12%
Class SA -- -- 67%
Class SB -- -- 9%
Class SC -- -- 12%

3.0. EVALUATION METHODOLOGY

Physical, chemical, and biological data were evaluated, as described

below, to determine if water quality was suitable to protect the State

classified uses defined in Regulation 61-68 "Water Classifications and

Standards." Data were also evaluated to determine if water quality was

suitable to provide for the protection and propagation of fish, shell-

fish, and wildlife and provide for recreation in and on the water - the

fishable/swimmable goals of the Federal Clean Water Act.

3.1. Waters Assessed

Assessed waters are those waters directly monitored as part of

the trend network or during special studies. The waters assessed

since the last reporting period have been increased by using

secondary monitoring station data in addition to primary monitoring

station data. We have assessed data from the 135 primary stations

plus 152 secondary stations representing waters not covered by the

primary stations. The entire secondary station network includes 358

stations. Primary stations are sampled monthly year round and

secondary stations are sampled monthly, May through October.

Figure 3.1.A. shows the location of primary monitoring stations

and Figure 3.1.B. shows the loca'tion of secondary monitoring

stations.

3.2. Determination of Attainment of.Classified Uses

In general, the determination of attainment of designated or

classified uses was made by applying the State numeric standards

summarized in Table 3.2.A. for each class. More specifically, a

designated use was attainable if the following criteria were met:

a. Shellfish harvesting was attainable if waters met the

total coliform bacteria criterion of an MIPN median no

greater than 70/100 ml with no more than 10% of the

samples greater than 230/100 ml (Class SA waters). The

Department now uses a fecal coliform bacteria criteria

for Class SA waters. This is consistent with the Shell-

fish Sanitation'Program (See Section 4.3.2.).

B-026
S-292f 42 CW-023
ZA 8 CW-197
'kIzza- AW-198
B-311
cW b!Y
S-13
X 001
S,, 50
13-02 -041
-SV.24 07
SV3 I S oil . ,II 0C 1W PP-00
5-018. cvto,16
V.,
77- ""_Oa
i-04 Ei ar. P, PO-069
t
B. PO-327
U
k/ 4
1.
A PO-023
4? PD-080-4"Pb-M
'-054' V, -
Sk-021 i
ve CW4 7
6-1 6 S-642, ;,' " k r 'a FID
-131 .038
J

j, s;279 0 S-2
kk, 4) - 4 -
-Oa V
I I 2704 P;j
f7 1 "C-001 4-
8.030 ) -- . "W I - t.: . __ , \

N I 1".
I 091 -222
ir
J.- 'r.0,07 I'D 22 7 2
go.
-A
"q,
SV-2 C61
0791 pb- 7D
71
ST 429
GO "S
SV.O v-j_
E-059, I / EC-
puL,44
i _;V 1". 1073
Sv- a
015
079
:V E-Oug., Vital I
Pr
N ATL QZ2 1-. - -
.3.
loo
'V

C T- of, ..D- 1 14 X- 1,2
Figure 3.1.A. s 'a J,
45,
South Carolina _Y P-118 Still
it, U/1
Department of Health and Environmental Control

Fixed Monitoring Network
N f

Primary Stations

r
A6:

V~- CoC7'0 .'"
*SLLL7IJ ~~ 'k~~ \~r4L ~'4%~(
01~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I >o,**

~~~~ &. .~KZ;L. . )\..~L,<.L, x, / *? J.h
'<4n l. _.If s"I'

'~~~-rf"b :: 'Y0' n'0~ So' U ly\ "'r I so I>

~~g~~b N,7'~�L/. &*2>LI 1. .
CJ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~" K *- '1 'tLLS
�1;1~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~t A S " C tr't' ~ ,NI, s/rn .. ( 'P'wI
t~~~~~~) )jt4�< AA{ I
K1~ a~ . ss ..T;A4 V ~O 500" jJ� ;
siir ~ ~ < -N A .4

H ~~, A 3 ~~~ - �- -

�� ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~, 00 S- A3~ -~ i2 ,,,.
~~~~~~~I~0125 *,u- b-s /�
Z1/I"- ).Co..
Figur 3..B )ll .l0.01A.u

k'~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~4 */.

II /i \ t5*L* 4
osl~~~~4''" ~A- C
C, '~~~~~~~~~~~ C)~~~lrr
~~g 5.. ~ ~~~~~~~: '~~~~,,,,,~-~
ap ~~
01~ ~ ~~~�sv . c,

i1~ rPI iC. 1 d 1., .. I - V

"V: --/"L;~~~3 0

b. Primary contact. recreation was attainable if waters met

the fecal coliform bacteria criterion of a geometric mean

no greater than 200/100 ml with no more than 10% of the

samples greater than 400/100 ml (Class A and Class SB

waters).

c. Secondary contact recreation and water supply uses were

attainable if waters met the fecal coliform bacteria

criterion of a geometric mean no greater than 1000/100 ml

with no hore than 20% of the samples greater than 2000/100

ml (Class B waters, both uses, and Class SC waters,

secondary contact recreation).

d. Survival and propagation of an aquatic community was

attainable if waters met a daily average dissolved oxygen

concentration not less than 5.0 mg/l with no concentra-

tions below 4.0 mg/1 (all class waters). Certain waters

may not meet the specified numeric standard for dissolved

oxygen due to natural conditions but designated uses may

still be attainable. If dissolved oxygen values were

consistently less than 4.0 mg/I, professional judgement

and knowledge of the biological community was used to

determine if the designated use was attainable.

A determination of less than full support of designated or

classified uses was made by applying the criteria in Table 3.2.B. to

an analysis of data for bacteria, dissolved oxygen, pH, and bio-

logical communities.

In summary, a classified use was supported for a certain class

water if the specific numeric standards for pH, bacteria, and dis-

solved oxygen were met.

Table 3.2.A.
Summary of State Numeric Standards

Water Classification

Parameter A A-Trout B B-Trout SA SB SC

Dissolved Oxygen 5 Mg/l ---- 5 mg/l ---- 5 mg/l 5 mg/l
daily mean

Dissolved Oxygen 4 mg/i 6 mg/l 4 mg/l 6 mg/i 4 mg/l 4 mg/1 4 mg/l
low value

pH 6-8 6-8 6-8.5 6-8.5 6.5-8.5 6.5-8.5 6.5-8.5

Fecal coliform 200/100 mi-A 200/100 mi-A 1000/100 ml-A 1000/100 mi-A ---- 200/100 ml-A 1000/100 ml-A
bacteria 400/100 ml-C 400/100 ml-C 2000/100 ml-D 2000/100 ml-D 400/100 ml-C 2000/100 ml-D

Total coliform 70/100 ml-B
bacteria 230/100 ml-C

A-geometric mean value
B=Median value, IPN
C-iOX not to exceed
D=20X not to exceed

Table 3.2.B. Criteria for attainment of designated uses.

Assessment Assessment
Basis Description Fully attainable Partially attainable NPlot attainable

Monitored Fixed station sampling For all 'pollutants, For any one pollutant, For any one pollutant
(Chemistry) or survey sampling. criteria exceeded in<10% criteria exceeded 11-25% criteria exceeded 25%.
Chemical analysis of of measurements and mean and mean of measurements Pollutants found at
water, sediment, or of measurements is less is less than criteria; levels of concern.
)iota. than criteria. Pollutants or criteria exceeded <10%
not found at levels of & mean is greater than
concern. criteria. Pollutants not
found at levels of concern.

Monitored Site visit by qualif- Use fully supported; no Some uncertainty about Use clearly not sup-
(Biology) led biological person- evidence of modification use support; some modifi- ported; definite modi-
nel. Rapid bioassess- of community (within cation of community noted. fication of community.
ment protocols may be natural range of control/
used. ecoregion).

3.3. Determination of Attainment of 1983 Goals of the Clean Water Act

1. A waterbody, regardless of its use classification, has attained

the fishable goal if:

a. Less than 25% of the dissolved oxygen values were

below 5.0 mg/1l. If natural conditions cause the

dissolved oxygen to be below 5.0 mg/i, biological

data and professional judgement were used to deter-

mine if 'the water was fishable.

b. There are no fishing advisories or bans for the

waterbody.

2. A waterbody, regardless of its use classification, has attained

the swimmable goal if:

a. The fecal coliform geometric mean is no greater than

200/100 ml and no more than 10% of the samples 'exceed

400/100 ml.

b. Known physical conditions do not preclude swimming.

3. A waterbody has attained the fishable/swimmable goal if the

- criteria for I and 2, above, are met.

3.4. Determination of Surface Waters Affected by Toxics

*Since the 304(a) criteria for many toxics are lower than the

State's analytical detection limit, all toxics analyzed for must

first be evaluated to determine if measurable amounts were detected.

If no toxics were detected, and the 304(a) criterion is below the

detection limit, the waterbody is considered to be not affected by

toxics. If measurable amounts of toxics were detected, or the

304(a) criterion is above the detection limit, the detected con-

centration was compared to the appropriate 304(a) criterion.

For those few metals criteria which are hardness-dependent,

detected concentrations were compared with the concentration com-

puted using a hardness of 50 mg/I. Most South Carolina waters have

a hardness less than 50 mg/I, but the equations for computing metal

toxicity are not reliable below 50 mg/l hardness. The 304(a)

criterion which represents acute toxicity was used since most metals

are collected as single grab samples.

Table 3.4.A. presents the 304(a) criteria used to evaluate

waters affected by toxics. These are the toxics for which EPA has

developed national criteria and for which South Carolina Department

of Health and Environmental Control has conducted analyses.

Table 3.4.A.

304(a) Criteria for Priority Pollutants

Freshwater Saltwater

Cadmium 3.9 ug/l 43 ug/l
Copper 9.2 ug/l* 2.9 ug/l
Lead 34 ug/l* 140 ug/l
Mercury 2.4 ug/l 2.1 ug/l
Nickel . 790 ug/l* 75 ug/l
Zinc 65 ug/l 95 ug/l
B-Endosulfan 0.22 ug/l 0.034 ug/l
G-BHC 2.0 ug/l 0.16 ug/l
Aldrin 3.0 ug/l 1.3 ug/l
Dieldrin 2.5 ug/l 0.71 ug/l
4,4'-DDT 1.1 ug/l 0.13 ug/l
Endrin 0.18 ug/l 0.037 ug/l
Heptdchlor 0.52 ug/l 0.053 ug/l
Chlordane 2.4 ug/l 0.09 ug/l
Toxaphene 0.73 ug/l 0.21 ug/l
PCB 2.0 ug/l 10 ug/l

*computed at hardness of 50 mg/i

4.0. SURFACE WATER QUALITY

4.1. Rivers and Streams

South Carolina has approximately 9,900 miles of freshwater

rivers and streams. Although 3,795 miles were assessed using

data collected at water quality monitoring stations, the

strategic location of these monitoring stations allows thesedata

to provide a representative assessment of water quality for the

entire state. These waters were assessed using data collected at

337 DHEC water quality monitoring stations representing 3,795

stream miles.

4.1.1. Summary of Assessment

Determinations of attainment of State classified uses and

the goals of the Clean Water Act for individual waterbodies are

presented in Tables 4.1.E. - 4.1.H. at the end of this section

concerning the assessment of rivers and streams,

Table 4.1.A.
Attainment of State Classified Uses
Rivers and Streams - Reported as Miles
FY 1986 - FY 1987

Basin Assessed Full Partial Not

Pee Dee 1035 779.5 57 248.5

Santee Cooper 1721 1184 286 251

Edisto Combahee 522 442 35 45

Savannah 467 419 17 31

Statewide 3795 2824.5 395 575.5

% Attainment
Statewide 754 10% 15%

Table 4.1.B.

Attainment of CWA Goals
Rivers and Streams - Reported as Miles
FY 1986 - FY 1987

Basin Assessed Fish/Swim Fishable Swimmable Neither

Pee Dee 1085 708 856.5 815 121.5

Santee Cooper 1721 641 1690 641 31

Edisto Combahee 522 388 500 398 12

Savannah 467 341 430 345 33

Statewide 3795 2078 3476.5 2199 197.5

% Attainment
Statewide 55% 92% 58% 5%

Table 4.1.C.

Probable Causes of Partial or Non-Attainment of Classified Uses
Rivers and Streams Statewide
FY 1986 - FY 1987

Miles % of Non-Attaining

Low dissolved oxygen 320.75 33%

Fecal coliform contamination 617.75 64%

pH contraventions 2.0 < 1%

Toxics accumulation 0 0

Unknown 30.0 3%

970.5

Table 4.1.D.

Probable Sources of Partial or Non-Attainment of Classified Uses
Rivers and Streams Statewide
FY 1986 - FY 1987

liles % of Non-Attaining % of Assessed

Point Sources 225 23% 6%

Municipal 170*
Industrial 55

Nonpoint Sources 531.5 55% 14%

Agriculture 364
Urban runoff 157.5
Forests
Hydrologic Modification 2
Construction 4
Silviculture 4

Unknown Sources 214 22% 6%

Total Miles Partially or 970.5 25%
Not Attaining

Total Miles Assessed 3795
*132 miles were affected by facilities which have been eliminated, undergoing
an upgrade, or had interim limits.

4.2. Lakes and Reservoirs -

South Carolina has approximately 1,400 lakes between 10 and

1,000 acres in size covering 45OOO acres. There are IS reser-

voirs larger than 1,000 acres in size impounding more than 471,00

acres; thirteen of these reservoirs contain more than 95% of the

State's impounded waters. Most South Carolina lakes and reser-

voirs have multiple uses: the principal uses are recreation, power

production, and flood control. Approximately 455,000 acres repre-

sent publicly owned lakes and reservoirs. South Carolina lakes

were assessed for this report using data collected at 50 OHEC

water quality monitoring stations representing 410,407 acres.

Legends for Tables Showing Attainment

Refer to: Tables 4.1.E. - 4.1.H.
Tables 4.2.E. - 4.2.G.
Tables 4.3.E. - 4.3.H.

Waterbody

Name of waterbody
Basin and sub-basin
County

Class

Water classification according to Regulation 61-69, "Classified Waters"
*denotes site-specific standards (D.O. minimum 4 mg/I, pH minimum 5)

Cause

Parameter with contraventions that was responsible for partial or non-attain-
ment of classified uses

DO = dissolved oxygen
FC = fecal coliform bacteria
TOX = toxics
NUT = nutrients

Major/Minor

cause considered major if responsible for partial attainment
cause considered minor if responsible for non-attainment

Source

Probable pollution source responsible for partial or non-attainment of clas-
sified uses

PS = point source
NPS = non-point source
UNK = unknown source

Type
Point Sources

MUN = municipal facility
SUN (E) = municipal facility, eliminated since assessment period
NUN (IL) = municipal facility, hdd interim limits during assessment period
riUN (U) = municipal facility, facility undergoing upgrade
IND = industrial facility

Non-Point Sources

Ag = agricultural activity
UR = urban runoff
Forest = runoff from forested land (but not silvicultural activities)
Unk = unknown source
Con = construction activity
Sil = Silviculture

TABLE 4.1.E.

ATTAINMENT OF STATE CLASSIFIED USES AND THE 1983 FEDERAL GOAL
FRESHWATER RIVERS AND STREAMS
FY 86 AND FY 87

PEE DEE BASIN

STATE CLASSIFIED USES I 1983 FEDERAL GOAL

TOTAL MILES PARTIALLY NOT ICAUSE ISOURCE I NOT FISHABLE SWIMMABLE
WATERBODY CLASS ASSESSED ATTAINED ATTAINED ATTAINED I MAJOR MINOR I TYPE ATTAINED ATTAINED ONLY ONLY

Beaverdam Creek A 3 3 IDO x IUnk N.Car. I 3
030722 IpH
Dillon Co I
'1 1
Big Swamp B* 16 16 IFC x INPS Ag I 12 4
030728 ;IDO x I
Florence Co I I
raN' Birch Creek A 8 8 IFC x INPS Ag 1 8
� 030710 IDO x I
Williamsburg Co I I

Black Creek B 28 28 1 1 I 28
030725 B* 22 19 3 IDO x IPS Ind 1 22
Chesterfid & Darl Cos A '20 20 IFC X IPS Ind I 20

Black Mlngo Creek A* 23 23 IDO x INPS Ag i 23
030708 I I
Georgetown Co I I
I I
Black River A* 102 102 1 1 102
030710-12
Geotown & Willmsbrg Cos

Brown Swamp B* 2 2 2
030718
Marion Co

Buck Swamp B* 12 12 IDO x PS Mun 1 12
030720 I I
Dillon Co I I

Catfish Canal B* 36 36 IFC ' x INPS Ag,UR I 36
030724 IDO x I I
Marion Co I I I

TABLE 4.1.E.
ATTAINMENT OF STATE CLASSIFIED USES AND THE 1983 FEDERAL GOAL
FRESHWATER RIVERS AND STREAMS
FY 86 AND FY 87
PEE DEE BASIN

I I
Chinners Mill Branch A 4 4 IDO x IUnk 4
030718 I I
Horry Co I I
I II
Cousar Branch B 1 1 IFC x IPS Ind 1
030730 I I
Lee Co I I
Crabtree Creek A 7 7 IFC x INPS Ag I 7
030716 1DO x UR I
Horry Co I I
I I I
Crooked Creek A 4 4 IFC x INPS Ag,UR I 4
030726 B 6 6 I I I 6
Marlboro Co I I I
I I I
Fork Creek B 12 12 4 I I 12
030734 I
Chesterfield Co I I

Green Swamp B 4 4 I I I 4
030714 I I
Sumter Co I I
* I I I
Hanging Rock Creek B 5 5 I I 5
030732 I I
Kershaw Co I
I I I .
High Hill Creek A 14 i4 I I 14
030725
Darlinrgton Co I I

Indian Creek B 9 9 I I 9
03072
Chesterfield Co

TABLE 4.1.E.

ATTAINMENT OF STATE CLASSIFIED USES AND THE 1983 FEDERAL GOAL
FRESHWATER RIVERS AND STREAMS
FY 86 AND FY 87
PEE DEE BASIN

STATE CLASSIFIED USES I 1983 FEDERAL GOAL

TOTAL MILES PARTIALLY NOT ICAUSE ISOURCE I NOT FISHABLE SWIMMABLE
WATERBODY CLASS ASSESSED ATTAINED ATTAINED ATTAINED I MAJOR MINOR I TYPE ATTAINED ATTAINED ONLY ONLY
I I I
Intracoastal Waterway A 8 8 I I I 8
030715 I I
Horry Co I
Jeffries Creek B* 28 7 21 IDO x INPS Ag I 7 21
030724 A* 7 7 I I I 7
Florence Co I I
I I
Kingston Lake A 15 15 IFC x INPS UR I 15
030716 I I I
Horry Co I I I
Kingstree Swamp Canal A 17 17 I I 17
030710 I I I
Williamsburg Co I I I

Lake Swamp A 14 14 IDO x INPS Ag I 14
030718 I i
Horry Co I I
{I I {
Lick Creek B 3 1 2 IFC x IUnk I 3
030732 I
Kershaw & Lanc Cos I
I I I
Little Fork Creek B 9 9 IFC x IUnk I 9
030734 I I
Chesterfield Co I I
I I I
Little Lynches River B 12 12 IFC x INPS Ag I 12
030732 I I I
Lancaster Co I I
Little Pee Dee River A 61 61 I I I 61
030718-20 B 35 35 I 35
Dillon & Marion Cos I I

TABLE 4.1.E.
ATTAINMENT OF STATE CLASSIFIED USES AND THE 1983 FEDERAL GOAL
FRESHWATER RIVERS AND STREAMS
FY 86 AND FY 87
PEE DEE BASIN

STATE CLASSIFIED USES 1 1983 FEDERAL GOAL
TOTAL MILES PARTIALLY NOT ICAUSE ISOURCE I NOT FISHABLE SWIMMABLE
WATERBODY CLASS ASSESSED ATTAINED ATTAINED ATTAINED I MAJOR MINOR I TYPE ATTAINED ATTAINED ONLY ONLY

Lumber River I
030722 A 10 10 1 10
Marion Co I
Lynches Lake B* 31 31 IDO x INPS Ag,UR I 31
030728 I
Florence Co I
Lynches River B 116 116 I I I 110 6
030728-30-34
Chstrfld,Flor,& Kersh Cos
Maidendown Swamp B 2 2 IDO x iPS Ind I 2
030720 I INPS Ag I
Marion Co I I
Mapie Swamp B* 3 . 3 IDO X IPS Mun 1 3
030720 1 1
Dillon Co I I
II I
Middle Swamp B* 10 10 IDO x INPS Ag I 10
030724 1 1 1
Florence Co I I
Nasty Branch B 3 3 1 1 1 3
030714
Sumter Co
Newman Swamp B*2 2 2 I 1 2
030730 I
Darilngton Co I I
Pantlher Creek 8 6 2 4 IDO x IPS Mun I 2 4
030720 1 INPS Ag
Marlboro Co I

TABLE 4.1.E.
ATTAINMENT OF STATE CLASSIFIED USES ANO THE 1983 FEDERAL GOAL
FRESHWATER RIVERS AND STREAMS
FY'86 AND FY 87
PEE DEE BASIN

STATE CLASSIFIED USES I 1983 FEDERAL GOAL

TOTAL MILES PARTIALLY NOT ICAUSE ISOURCE I NOT FISHABLE SWIMMABLE
WATERBODY CLASS ASSESSED ATTAINED ATTAINED ATTAINED I MAJOR MINOR I TYPE ATTAINED ATTAINED ONLY ONLY

Pee Dee River B 143 143 I I 1 143
030702-24-26 I I I
Darl,Hor,Marion,& Marl Cos I I
Pocotaligo River B* 36 30 6 IDO x INPS Ag,UR, I 30 6
030714 1I Hyd.Modl
Sumter & Clarendon Cos I I I
I I I
J Pudding Swamp A 8 8 IDO x INPS Ag I 8
030712 I I
Williamsburg Co I I I
I I
Rocky Bluff Swamp B 5 5 IDO x INPS Ag I 5
030712 I I
Sumter Co I I I
Smith Swamp B* 13 13 IDO x IPS Mun(IL)I 13
030724 1 1
Marion Co I I
I I I
Snake Branch B 1 0.5 0.5 IFC x INPS UR I 0.5 0.5
030725 IDO X
Darlington Co I I I
I I 1.
Sparrow Swamp B, 34 34 1 1 1 34
030730 1 1 1
Florence Co I I I
I I I
Sw1ft Creek A 13 13 1 I 1 13
030725 1 1 1
Darlington Co I I
Thompson Creek B 23 19. 4 IFC x INPS Ag I 23
030726 I I
Chesterfield Co I I

TABLE 4.1.E.
ATTAINMENT OF STATE CLASSIFIED USES AND THE 1983 FEDERAL GOAL
FRESHWATER RIVERS AND STREAMS
FY 86 AND FY 87
PEE DEE BASIN

STATE CLASSIFIED USES I 1983 FEDERAL GOAL

TOTAL MILES PARTIALLY NOT IClUSE ISOURCE I NOT FISHABLE SWIMMABLE
WATERBODY CLASS ASSESSED ATTAINED ATTAINED ATTAINED I MAJOR MINOR I TYPE ATTAINED ATTAINED' ONLY ONLY

Todds Branch B 2 2 IFC x INPS UR I 2
030732 1 I
Lancaster Co I I

Turkey Creek B 5 5 IFC x INPS UR i 5
030714 1
Sumter Co I I
* I I I
Waccamaw River A* 59 59 1 I 1 59
030716
Horry Co
Wildbat Creek (N) B 7 7 I 1 7
030734 I
Lancaster Co I I
I I
Wildcat Creek (S) B 6 6 1 1 1 6
030734 I I I
Lancaster Co I I

TABLE 4.1.F.
ATTAINMENT OF STATE CLASSIFIED USES AND THE 1983 FEDERAL GOAL
FRESHWATER RIVERS AND STREAMS
FY 86 AND(FY 87
SANTEE-COOPER BASIN

Allison Creek B 8 8 I 1 I 8
030836 I
York County I I
Bear Creek B 13 9 4 IFC' x INPS Ag I 13
030834 I
Lancaster Co I I
~~~~~~I I
Beards Creek B 5 5 IDO x lUnk 1 5
030860 I I
Laurens Co I I
~~~~~~I II
Beaverdam Creek B 9 9 IFC x INPS Ag I 9
030636 I
York Co I I
I I I
Beaverdam Creek B 5 5 I I I 5
030862
Greenville Co

Beaverdan Creek 8 10 10 I I 10
030864
Spartanburg Co

Big Durbin Creek B 12 7 5 IFC x IPS MunCE) 1 12
030866 1 INPS Ag 1
Gravl & Laurens Cos I I
I I I
B1 Pike Tree Creek B 2 2 1 I 1 2
0128 1 1
rershaw Co I I

Broad River B 91 91 1 I 1 46 45
030850-54-56 I
Chrk,Frfld,Rich,& Uni Cos I I I

TABLE 4.1.F.
ATTAINMENT OF STATE CLASSIFIED USES AND THE 1983 FEDERAL GOAL
FRESHWATER RIVERS AND STREAMS
FY 86 AND FY 87
SANTEE-COOPER BASIN

Broadmouth Creek B 12 10 2 IDO x iUnk 12
030807
Anderson Co I I
Brown Creek B 0.5 0.5 IFC x IPS Mun(E) I 0.5
030836 1 I I
York Co I I
~I I
Brushy Creek B 2 2 IFC x IPS Ind 1 2
030846 INPS UR I
Greenville Co I I
I
Brush Creek B 9 9 9 1 9
030847 I
Anderson Co I
Brushy Creek B 10 10 1 10
030862 I
Greenville Co I
I I
Buffalo Creek B 6 6 6
030856 I
Cherokee Co I
Bullocks Creek A 22 22 IFC x INPS Ag 1 22
030856 I I
York Co I I
I I
Bush kiver B 20 20 IFC x !PS Mun I 20
030842 1 INPS Ag
Laurens Co I. I
Calabash Creek B 3 3 IFC x IPS Mun(U) i 3
(130836 I I
York Co I I

TABLE 4.1.F.
ATTAINMENT OF STATE CLASSIFIED USES AND THE 1983 FEDERAL GOAL
FRESHWATER RIVERS AND STREAMS
FY 86 AND FY 87
SANTEE-COOPER BASIN

Camplng Creek A 7 7 IFC x IPS Ind I 7
030838 I INPS Ag
Newberry Co I I
I I
Cane Creek B 19 19 lFC x INPS Ag 1 19
030834 I I
Lancaster Co I I
I I
ra Canoe Creek B 3 3 IFC x lUnk 3
co 030856
Cherokee Co
Catawba River B 42 42 I I I 42
030834 I
Chester & York Cos
I . I
Cedar Creek A 22 22 IFC x lUnk I 22
030624 I I
Richland Co I I I
Cherokee Creek B 3 3 IFC x IUnk I 3
030856
Cherokee Co
Clouds Creek B 16 16 I I I 16
030840
Saluda Co
Conqaree Creek A 20 20 I I 20
030824
Lexington Co
Conqaree River B 43 43 I I 42 1
030824
Rlchland Co

TABLE 4.1.F.
ATTAINMENT OF STATE CLASSIFIED USES AND THE 1983 FEDERAL GOAL
FRESHWATER RIVERS AND STREAMS
FY 86 AND FY 87

SANTEE-COOPER BASIN

Coronaca Creek B 4 4 I I 4
030842 I I
Greenwood Co I I

Crane Creek B 12 12 IFC x lUnk 12
030850 I I
Richland Co I I
I I I
) Crowders Creek B 4 4 IFC x IUnk N.Car. I- 4
030836 IFC x INPS Ag I
York Co I I

Diversion Canal A 5 5 I I I 5
030804 I I
Berkeley Co I I

Doolittle Creek B 5 5 I 5
030856 I I
Cherokee Co I

Dry Fork Creek B 4 2 2 IFC x INPS UR I 4
030854 I I Ag I
Chester Co

Duncan Creek B 4 4 I I 1 4
030860 I
Newberry Co I

Eaqle Creek 8 3 3 IFC x IUnk 1 3
030818 I I
Dorchester Co I I

Enoree River B 86 86 I I 86
030860-62 I
Grnvl,Laur, & Nwbry Cos I

TABLE 4.1.F.
ATTAINMENT OF STATE CLASSIFIED USES AND THE 1983 FEDERAL GOAL
FRESHWATER RIVERS AND STREAMS
FY 86 AND FY 87

SANTEE-COOPER BASIN

Fairforest Creek B 19 19 I I 1 19
030864 I I
Spartanburg Co I
Flshing Creek A 3 3 IFC x INPS Ag 1 3
030832 B 40 40 I I I 40
Chester & York Cos I I
I I I
Furnace Creek B 5 5 I I 1 5
030856 I I
Cherokee Co I I
Georges Creek B 10 10 I I I 10
030847 1 i I
Pickens Co I I I
I I I
Gilder Creek B 9 9 I 9
030862 1 I I
Greenville Co I I I
Gills Creek B 18 11 7 IFC x IPS Mun I 18
030824 IDO x INPS UR I
Richland Co I
I' II
Gills Creek B 11 11 IFC x INPS Ag 11
030834 IDO x I
Lancaster Co I
I I I
Goose Creek SC 6 6 IDO x INPS UR I 6
030810 (B) I I I
Charleston Co I I
Grove Creek B 8 8 IFC x IPS Ind I 8
030847 I I I
Greenville Co I I

TABLE 4.1.F.
ATTAINMENT OF STATE CLASSIFIED USES AND THE 1983 FEDERAL GOAL
FRESHWATER RIVERS AND STREAMS
FY 86 AND FY 87
SANTEE-COOPER BASIN

STATE CLASSIFIED USES I 1983 FEDERAL GOAL
TOTAL MILES PARTIALLY NOT ICAUSE ISOURCE I NOT FISHABLE SWIMMABLE
WATERBODY CLASS ASSESSED ATTAINED ATTAINED ATTAINED I MAJOR MINOR I TYPE ATTAINED ATTAINED ONLY ONLY
I I I
Grassy Run Creek B 3 3 IFC x INPS UR I 3
020832I I
Chester Co I I
Halfway Swamp A 14 14- IFC x IUnk I 14
030804 I I
Calhoun Co I I
I I
Harris Branch B I 1 IDO x IPS Ind I 1
030840 IFC x I
Saluda Co
Horse Pen Creek B 3 3 I I . 3
030862 I I
Greenville Co
Huff Creek B 10 10 10
030845
Greenville Co I I
Irene Creek B 5 5 I5
030856 I I
Cherokee Co
Jackson Creek A 9 9 IFC x INPS Ag,UR, I 9
030850 Con
Fairfield Co
Jimmies Creek B 9 9 9
030866
Spartanburg Co I
Jordan Creek E 8 a I 8
030866 I ICo
Spartanburg CoI

TABLE 4.1.F.
ATTAINMENT OF STATE CLASSIFIED USES AND THE 1983 FEDERAL GOAL
FRESHWATER RIVERS AND STREAMS
FY 86 AND FY 87
SANTEE-COOPER BASIN

Keily Creek B 2 2 1 I I 2
030826 1
Kershaw Co I I
I I 1.
Kelsey Creek B 6 6 IFC x INPS UR I 6
030864 .I I
Spartanburg Co I I
I I
o Kinley Creek B 5 5 IDO x IPS Mun(E) I 5
030838 IFC x INPS Ag,UR, I
Lexington Co I I Con
Lanqstson Creek B 4 4 1 I 1 4
030846 1 1 1
Greenville Co I I I
Laurel Creek B 3 3 I I I 3
030846 1 1 1
Greenville Co I I
Lawsons Fork Creek B 24 24 IUNK X IPS Mun(E) I 24
030868 INUTS? I (U) I
Spartanburg Co ITOX? I
Llmestone Mill Creek B 4 4 IFC x INPS 4
030856 I I U I
Cherokee Co I I
Little River B 35 35 IFC x INPS UR 35
030842 1 1 Ag I
Laurens Co I I
Little River B lb i6 I I 16
03350 I I
Fdirflied Co

TABLE 4.1.F.
ATTAINMENT OF STATE CLASSIFIED USES AND THE 1983 FEDERAL GOAL
FRESHWATER RIVERS AND STREAMS
FY 86 AND FY 87
SANTEE-COOPER BASIN

STATE CLASSIFIED USES I 1983 FEDERAL GOAL
TOTAL MILES PARTIALLY NOT ICAUSE ISOURCE I NOT FISHABLE SWIMMABLE
WATERBODY CLASS ASSESSED ATTAINED ATTAINED ATTAINED I MAJOR MINOR I TYPE ATTAINED ATTAINED ONLY ONLY
I I
Little Buck Creek B 5 5 IFC x IUnk I 5
030868 I I I
Spartanburg Co I I
Little Pine Tree Creek A 5 5 I I 5
030828 I I
Kershaw Co I I
I. I I
Little Saluda River B 21 .21 IDO x INPS Ag I 21
030840 I I
Saluda Co I I
I I
Little Wateree Creek A 15 15 IFC x INPS Ag I 15
030830 I I I
Fairfield Co I I
I I
Long Branch A 4 4 IFC x IUnk I 4
030856 II
York Co I I
I I
Lorick Branch B I I IFC x INPS Ag,UR 0.5 0.5
030838 IDO x I
Lexington Co I
I 1 1
McAlpine Creek B 2 2 IFC x IUnk I 2
030836 I
Lancaster Co I I
I ilI
Menq Creek B 4 4 IFC x IUnk I 4
030G54 I I
Union Co I I
I. I 1
Miidle Saluda River B 15 15 I I 15
03048 I I
Greenville Co I

TABLE 4.1.F.

ATTAINMENT OF STATE CLASSIFIED USES AND THE 1983 FEDERAL GOAL
FRESHWATER RIVERS AND STREAMS
FY 86 AND FY 87
SANTEE-COOPER BASIN

STATE CLASSIFIED USES I 1983 FEDERAL GOAL
TOTAL MILES PARTIALLY NOT ICAUSE ISOURCE I NOT FISHABLE SWIMMABLE
WATERBODY CLASS ASSESSED ATTAINED ATTAINED ATTAINED I MAJOR MINOR I TYPE ATTAINED ATTAINED ONLY ONLY
I I I
Middle Tyger River B 14 14 I I 14
030866 I I
Greenville Co I I
Mill Creek A 24 19 5 IFC x IUnk I 19 5
030824 I I
Richland Co I
Mill Creek B 2 2 IFC x INPS UR I 2
030862 IDO x I I
Spartanburg Co I I
I I I
Mine Creek B 12 12 IFC x IPS Ind I 12
030840 I INPS Ag,Sil I
Saluda Co I I I
Mitchell Creek B 4 4 I I I 4
030864 I I I
Union Co
Mountain Creek B 7 7 I I I 7
030862
Greenville Co
North Creek B 8 8 I I i 8
030842
Laurens Co
N Pacolet/Pacolet Rvrs B 58 58 I I I 58
030868d I I
Cherokee & Spbg Cos
North Saluda River B 16 16 I I I 16
030848
Greenville Co

TABLE 4.1.F.
ATTAINMENT OF STATE CLASSIFIED USES AND THE 1983 FEDERAL GOAL
FRESHWATER RIVERS AND STREAMS
FY 86 AND FY 87
SANTEE-COOPER BASIN

North Santee River B 21 21 1 I I 21
030802 1 1 1
Georgetown Co I
North Tyger River B 19 19 1 1 19
030866
Spartanburg Co
Page Creek B 3 3 I I I 3
030868 I i
Spartanburg Co
Peoples Creek B 3 3 IFC x IPS Mun(IL)I 3
030856 1 I
Cherokee Co
Potter Branch B 2 2 I I 2
030868 1
Spartanburg Co
Princess Creek B 3 3 I I I 3
030862 I I i
Greenville Co I I
Rabon Creek B 9 9 1 9
030844
Laurens Co
Rawls Creek B 6 6 IFC x INPS UR I 6
030838 I I
Lexington Co I I
Red Bank Creek A 9 5 4 IFC x IPS Hun I 5 4
030824 I INPS Ag I
Lexington Co I

TABLE 4.1.F.
ATTAINMENT OF STATE CLASSIFIED USES AND THE 1983 FEDERAL GOAL
FRESHWATER RIVERS AND STREAMS
FY 86 AND FY 87
SANTEE-COOPER BASIN

Reedy River B 57 51 6 IUNK x IPS Mun(IL)I 37 6 14
030846 INUTS? I (U) I
Grnvl & Laurens Cos ITOX? INPS UR I
I I I
Rock Creek B 5 5 IFC x INPS Ag,UR I 5
030846 I I
Greenville Co I I
I I I
Rocky Creek A 27 27 IFC x IUnk I 27
030832 I I I
Chester Co I I I
I I I
Rocky Creek B 8 8 IFC x INPS UR I 8
030862 I I I
Greenville Co
* I I I
Ross Branch B 4 4 IFC x INPS Aa I 4
030854 I I U I
York Co I I
Saluda River B 78 78 I I 78
030838-42-47-48 A 16 16 I I 16
Gnvi,Gnwd,Lau,Lex,&Pic Co I I I
Sandy River A 5 5 IFC x INPS Ag I 5
030854 I I
Chester Co
Santee River B 68 68 I I I 68
030802
Berk & Chtn Cos
Savannah Branch A 5 5 IFC x INPS UR I 5
030(24 { I
Lexington Co I I

TABLE 4.1.F.

ATTAINMENT OF STATE CLASSIFIED USES AND THE 1983 FEDERAL GOAL
FRESHWATER RIVERS AND STREAMS
FY 86 AND FY 87
SANTEE-COOPER BASIN

Sawmill Branch B 12 12 IDO x IPS Mun(E) I 6 6
030818 IFC x I I
Dorchester Co I I
I I
Scott Creek B 1 1 IFC x INPS UR 1
030842 I
Newberry Co I
Six Mile Creek B 11 11 I I 11
030824 1 1 1
Lexington Co I I I
Smith Branch B 4 4 IFC x INPS UR I 4
(130850 1 I
Richland Co I I
South Saluda River B 20 20 1 1 1 20
030848 I I I
Greenville Co I I I

South Tyger River B 11 11 I I I 11
030866 I
Greenville Co I

Spain Creek B 0.5 0.5 I I 1 0.5
030848 1
Greenville Co

Spears Creek B 22 22 I I 1 22
030826 I I
Kershaw Co I I

Spivey Creek B 3 3 1 1 3
030868 1
Spartanburg Co I I I

TABLE 4.1.F.
ATTAINMENT OF STATE CLASSIFIED USES AND THE 1983 FEDERAL GOAL
FRESHWATER RIVERS AND STREAMS
FY 86 AND FY 87
SANTEE-COOPER BASIN

Steel Creek B 7.5 7 0.5 IFC x INPS Ag 1 7.5
030836 I
York co I
Sugar Creek B 11 11 I I I 11
030836
York Co
co Tailrace Canal A 5 5 S
030820 1 1 1
Berkeley Co
Taw Caw Creek A 7 7 IFC x INPS Ag I 7
030804 IDO x I I
Clarendon Co I I
I I I
Thicketty Creek B 19 11 8 IFC x INPS Ag 1 19
030856 1 I I
Cherokee Co I I I
Tinker Creek B 13 13 1 I 1 13
030864
Union Co
Tools Fork Creek B 8 8 IFC x IUnk I 8
030832
York Co
Toschs Creek B 4 4 4
030864
Union Co
Twelve Mile Creek B 6 6 iI 1 6
030836 I I
Lancaster Co

TABLE 4.1.F.
ATTAINMENT OF STATE CLASSIFIED USES AND THE 1983 FEDERAL GOAL
FRESHWATER RIVERS AND STREAMS
FY 86 AND FY 87

SANTEE-COOPER BASIN

Twenty Five Mile Creek A 22 22 IFC x IPS Mun(E) 1 22
03082 1 1 1
Kershaw Co I

Tyger River B 39 39 1 I 1 23 16
030864-66 1 1 1
Spbg & Union Cos I I I
Un Trib to Catawba River B 2 2 1 1 1 2
030836 1 1 1
York Co I I I

Un Trib to Brown Creek B 2 2 1 1 1 2
030854 1 1 1
Union Co I I

Un Trib to Saluda River B 1.5 1.5 IFC x IPS Mun(U) I 1.5
030847 1 1 1
Anderson Co I I
I I
Un Trib to Saluda River B 0.5 0.5 1 1 1 0.5
030847 1 1 i
Greenville Co I I
Un Trib to Crawford Creek A 3 3 1 1 1 3
030856 I I I
York Co I I
Walker Swamp B 6 6 1 6
030820
Berkeley Co I I

Wassamasaw Swamp B 21 21 . I 1 21
030818 I I I
Berkeley Co I I

TABLE 4.1.F.
ATTAINMENT OF STATE CLASSIFIED USES AND THE 1983 FEDERAL GOAL
FRESHWATER RIVERS AND STREAMS
FY 86 AND FY 87
SANTEE-COOPER BASIN

Wateree River B 59 59 I I 59
030826 I I
Kershaw & Rich Cos I I I
I I I
West Creek B 7 7 IFC x IUnk I 7
030840 I I I
Saluda Co I I
I I
' Wildcat Creek B 7 7 IFC x lUnk I 7
030832 IDO xI
York Co I I I
Wilson Creek B 10 6 4 IFC x IPS Mun(U) I 4 6
030842 IDO x I I
Greenwood Co I I 1
I I
Winnsboro Branch A 0.5 0.5 IFC x INPS UR I 0.5
030850 I I
Fairfield Co I I

TABLE 4.1.G.

ATTAINMENT OF STATE CLASSIFIED USES AND THE 1983 FEDERAL GOAL
FRESHWATER RIVERS AND STREAMS
FY 86 AND FY 87

EDISTO- COMBAHEE BASIN

STATE CLASSIFIED USES I 1983 FEDERAL GOAL

TOTAL MILES PARTIALLY- NOT ICAUSE ISOURCE I NOT FISHABLE SWIMMABLE
WATERBODY CLASS ASSESSED ATTAINED ATTAINED ATTAINED I MAJOR MINOR I TYPE ATTAINED ATTAINED ONLY ONLY

Ashepoo River B 15 5 10 IDO x IPS Hun I 5 10
030906 I INPS Ag,UR I
Colleton Co I I
I I I
Black Creek A 11 11 I 1 I 11
030922 I I
Rampton Co I I I
I I
c" Bull Swamp Creek A 7 7 IDO x INPS Ag I 7
030914 B 5 5 IFC x I I 5
Lexington Co I I
I I I
Combahee River A 3 3 1 1 1 3
030922 1 1 1
Hampton Co I I I
I I 1
Coosawhatchie River A 36 36 1 1 1 36
030932 1 1 1
Allendale & Hampton Cos I I

Edisto River A 71 71 I I I 71
030906-08
Charl,Dorch,& Orgb Cos I I

First Branch A 1 1 IFC x INPS UR I
030918 IpH . x
Edgefield Co I I
I I
Four Hole Swamp A 57 57 1 1 1 46 11
030918 I
Dorch & Orgb Cos I I
I I
Goodland Creek A 3 3 IFC x INPS Ag I 3
030918 I I
Orangeburg Co I I

TABLE 4.1.G.
ATTAINMENT OF STATE CLASSIFIED USES AND THE 1983 FEDERAL GOAL
FRESHWATER RIVERS AND STREAMS
FY 86 AND FY 87
EDISTO- COMBAHEE BASIN

STATE CLASSIFIED USES I 1983 FEDERAL GOAL
TOTAL MILES PARTIALLY NOT ICAUSE ISOURCE I NOT FISHABLE SWIMMABLE
WATERBODY CLASS ASSESSED ATTAINED ATTAINED ATTAINED I MAJOR MINOR I TYPE ATTAINED ATTAINED ONLY ONLY
I I
Gramling Creek B 5 5 IDO x IUnk 5
030914 IFC x I I
Orangeburg Co I I
I I I
Home Branch B 5 5 IDO x IPS Ind 1 5
030912 IFC x I I
Orangeburg Co I
14 Ireland Creek B 12 12 IDO x lUnk I 12
030906 I I i
Colleton Co I I
Lemon Creek B* 18 18 1 I 1 18
030924 I I
Bamberg Co I
Liqhtwood Knot Creek A 11 11 IDO x lUnk I 11
030916 � IFC x I
Lexington Co I I
North Fork Edisto River A 49 44 5 IFC x INPS Ag,UR I 44 5
030914-16 B 22 22 1 1 1 22
Aiken & Orgb Cos I I I
I I I
Polk Swamp B* 9 9 IFC x IUnk I 9
030908
Dorchester Co
Providence Swamp B 11 11 11 11
030912
Orangeburg Co
Rosemary Creek B 4 4 1 1 4
030924
Barnwell Co I

TABLE 4.1.0.

ATTAINMENT OF STATE CLASSIFIED USES AND THE 1983 FEDERAL GOAL
FRESHWATER RIVERS AND STREAMS
FY 86 AND FY 87
EDISTO- COMBAHEE BASIN

STATE CLASSIFIED USES I 1983 FEDERAL GOAL
..................... I -----------------
TOTAL MILES PARTIALLY NOT ICAUSE ISOURCE I NOT FISHABLE SWIMMABLE
WATERBODY CLASS ASSESSED ATTAINED ATTAINED ATTAINED I .MAJOR MINOR I TYPE ATTAINED ATTAINED ONLY ONLY

Salkehatchie River A 60 57 3 IFC x IPS Mun(U) I 57 3
030922-24' I (E) I
Barnwell & Colleton Cos I INPS Ag I
I I I
Sanders Branch B* 5 5 i I 5
030932 r I
Hampton Co I I
." Shaw Creek A 29 29 1 1 1 29
030918
Aiken Co
South Fork Edisto River B 71 71 I I I 71
030918
Alken Co I I

Spur Branch A 6 6 IFC( x IPS Mun(E) I 6
030918 1 1 1
Barnwell Co I I
I I I
Turkey Creek B 2 2 1 I 1 2
030924 I
Barnwell Co I I
I I I
Unrd'Trib to Granling Ck B 3 3 IDO x IPS Ind 1 3
030912 1 1
Orangeburg Co I I

TABLE 4.1.H.
ATTAINMENT OF STATE CLASSIFIED USES AND THE 1983 FEDERAL GOAL
FRESHWATER RIVERS AND STREAMS
FY 86 AND FY 87
SAVANNAH BASIN

Beaverdam Creek B 13 13 l I 1 13
031306 1 l l
Edgefield Co I
Betsy Creek B 1 1 .I 1
031310 I I
Anderson Co
Big Genersotee Creek B 5 5 1 5
031310 I
Anderson Co
Broadway Creek B 2 2 I l 2
031310
Anderson Co
Chattooga River A 34 34 1 34
031312
Oconee Co
Cherokee Creel: B 5 5 I . 5
031310
Anderson Co
Coneross Creel: A 5 5 I I l 5
031312
Oconee Co I I
Cupboard Creek B 5 1 4 IDO x IPS Ind I 1 4
031310 I
Arncerson Co l

E. Fork Chattooga River A 2 2 1 2
031312 l l
Oconee Co i

TABLE 4.1.8.
ATTAINMENT OF STATE CLASSIFIED USES AND THE 1983 FEDERAL GOAL
FRESHWATER RIVERS AND STREAMS
FY 86 AND FY 87
SAVANNAH BASIN

Eighteen Mile Creek B 21 10 6 5 IFC x IPS Mun(IL)I 21
031312 1 I (U) I
Pickens Co I I
Four Mile Creek B 19 19 1 1 19
031304
Aiken Co
4 Golden Creek B 5 5 IFC x IPS Mun(IL)I 5
031312 I I (U) I
Pickens Co I I
I II
Hard Labor Creek B 20 20 IDO x IPS Mun(U) I 20
031306 IFC x INPS Ag I
Greenwood Co I
Horse Creek B I1 11 I 11
031306 1 1
Aiken Co I
Little River B 3 3 1 3
031314 I I I
Pickens Co I I
Little Horse Creek A 1 I I I 1
031306 I
Aiken Co I
I I
Long Cane Criek B 30 30 1 1 1 30
03 (18 1 1 1
McCormick Co I
Lower Tihree Runs Creek B !8 18 1 . 1 18
031304 I
Aiken Co I

TABLE 4.1.H.

ATTAINMENT OF STATE CLASSIFIED USES AND THE 1983 FEDERAL GOAL
FRESHWATER RIVERS AND STREAMS
FY 86 AND FY 87
SAVANNAH BASIN -

STATE CLASSIFIED USES ! 1983 FEDERAL GOAL
TOTAL MILES PARTIALLY NOT ICAUSE ISOURCE I NOT FISHABLE SWIMMABLE
WATERBODY CLASS ASSESSED ATTAINED ATTAINED ATTAINED I MAJOR MINOR I TYPE ATTAINED ATTAINED ONLY ONLY

Norris Creek B 2 2 'I I 2
031325 I 1 I
Oconee Co I I I
Rocky River B 22 22 I I 1 22
031310 1 1
Anderson Co
4 Sand River B 2 2 I I 1 2
031306 1 i
Aiken Co I
Savannah River B 173 173 1 I I 173
031304-06-08-10
Abb., Aiken, Allen. Cos
Sawney Creek B 5 5 IDO x lUnk I 5
03130 I I I
Abbeville Co I I
I I
Six and Twenty Creek B 12 12 I 1 12
0312 I
Anderson Co
Steel Creek B 10 10 I I 10
031304 1
Aiken Co I I
Three and Twenty Creek B 3 3 1 1 3
031312
Arnderson Co I
Tlm3 Branch B 2 2
031304
Aiaen Co

TABLE 4.1.H.
ATTAINMENT OF STATE CLASSIFIED USES AND THE 1983 FEDERAL GOAL
FRESHWATER RIVERS AND STREAMS
FY 86 AND FY 87
SAVANNAU BASIN

Twelve Mile Creek B 24 24 1 i 1 3 13 8
031312
Plckens Co I I
UnnaNed Creek near I I
Central A 2 2 1 1 1 2
031312 1 1 1
Pickens Co I
Upper Three Runs Creek B 8 8 a 1 8
031304
Aiken Co
Woodside Branch B 2 2 IFC x IPS Mun(IL)I 2
031312 1 1 (U) I
Pickens Co I

4.2.1. Summary of Assessment

Determinations of attainment of State classified uses and

the goals of the Clean Water Act for individual waterbodies are

presented in Tables 4.2.E. - 4.2.G. at the end of this section

concerning the assessment of lakes and reservoirs.

Table 4.2.A.
Attainment of State Classified Uses
Lakes and Reservoirs - Reported as Acres
FY 1986- FY 1987

Basin Assessed Full Partial Not

Pee Dee 2,600 2,550 0 50

Santee Cooper 214,177 213,312 840 25

Edisto Combahee 0 0 0 0

Savannah 193,630 193,380 0 250

Statewide 410,407 409,242 840 325

% Attainment
Statewide 99% <1% <1%

Table 4.2.B.
Attainment of CWA Goals
Lakes and Reservoirs - Reported as Acres
FY 1986 - FY 1987

Basin Assessed Fish/Swim Fishable Swimmable Neither

Pee Dee 2,600 2,550 2,550 2,600 0

Santee Cooper 214,177 212,512 214,177 212,512 0

Edisto Combahee 0 0 0 0 0

Savannah 193,630 193,380 193,380 193,630 0
______________________________________________________________________________
Statewide 410,407 408,442 410,107 408,742 0

% Attainment
Statewide 99% 99% 99% 0

Table 4.2.C.

Probable Causes of Partial or Non-Attainment of Classified Uses
Lakes Statewide
FY 1986 - FY 1987

Acres % of Nton-Attaining

Low dissolved oxygen 50 4%

Fecal coliform contamination 865 74%�

pH contraventions 0 0

Toxics accumulation 250 22%

Unknown 0 0

1165

7able 4.2.0.

Probable Sources of Partial or Non-Attainment of Classified Uses
Lakes Statewide
FY 1986 - FY 1987

Acres % of Non-Attaining % of Assessed

Point Sources 250 21,% 1%
Municipal
Industrial 250

Nonpoint Sources 25 2% <1%
Agriculture --
Urban runoff 25
Forests --
Hydrologic IMlodification --
Unknown --

Unknown Sources 890 76% <.1%

Total Acres Partially or 1165 < 1%
Not Attaining

Total Acres Assessed 410,407

TABLE 4.2.E
ATTAINMENT OF STATE CLASSIFIED USES AND THE 1983 FEDERAL GOAL
LAKES AND RESERVOIRS
FY 86 AND FY 87
PEE DEE BASIN

STATE CLASSIFIED USES I 1983 FEDERAL GOAL
TOTAL ACRES PARTIALLY NOT ICAUSE ISOURCE I NOT FISHABLE SWIMMABLE
WATERBODY CLASS ASSESSED ATTAINED ATTAINED ATTAINED I MAJOR MINOR I TYPE ATTAINED ATTAINED ONLY ONLY

McLaurens Millpond A 50 50 0 IDO x IUnk 50
030720
Marlboro Co I I
Lake Robinson A* 2,250 2,250 1 1 1 2,250
030725
Chesterfield Co
Prestwood Lake A* 300 300 1 1 1 300
030725
Darlington Co

TABLE 4.2.F.
ATTAINMENT OF STATE CLASSIFIED USES AND THE 1983 FEDERAL GOAL
LAKES AND RESERVOIRS
FY 86 AND FY 87
SANTEE-COOPER BASIN

STATE CLASSIFIED USES I 1983 FEDERAL GOAL
TOTAL ACRES PARTIALLY NOT ICAUSE ISOURCE I NOT FISHABLE SWIMHABLE
WATERBODY CLASS ASSESSED ATTAINED ATTAINED ATTAINED I MAJOR MINOR I TYPE ATTAINED ATTAINED ONLY ONLY

William C. Bowen B 1,600 1,600 1 I 1 800 800
030868
Spartanburg Co
Lake Elizabeth A 60 60 1 1 60
030805
Richland Co
I Fishing Creek Reservoir A 3,370 2,530 840 I FC x I Unk 1 2,530 840
030832
Chester & Lanc. Cos
Forest Lake B 120 120 1 1 1 120
(030824
Richland Co

Lake Greenwood A 11,400 11,400 1 I 1 11,400
030844
Greenwood Co
Goose Creek Reservoir SC 600 600 1 I 1 600
030810
Berkeley Co
Lake Inspiration A 25 25 I FC x I NPS UR I 25
030804 1 1 1
Calhoun Co
Lake Lanier A 90 90 I I 1 90
030868 1 1
Greenville Co I

LaKe Marion A 110,600 110,600 1 1 1 110,600
030804 I I
Clarendon 6 Orgb. Cos I I

TABLE 4.2.F.
ATTAINMENT OF STATE CLASSIFIED USES AND THE 1983 FEDERAL GCOAL
LAKES AND RESERVOIRS
FY 86 AND FY 87
SANTEE-COOPER BASIN

Monticello Reservoir B 6,800 6,800 1 I 1 6,800
030852 1 1 1
Fairfield Co
Lake Murray A 51,000 51,000 1 I 1 51,000
030838 1
Lex. & Newberry Cos
bo North Saluda Reservoir AA 1,080 1,080 I I 1 1,080
030848 I I
Greenville Co
Table Rock Cove AA 500 500 1 1 1 500
030848 I
Greenville Co
Wateree Lake A 13,710 13,710 I I 1 13,710
030830
Fairfid & Kershaw Cos
Windsor Lake A 46 46 I I 1 46
030824 . I
Richland Co

TABLE 4.2.G.
ATTAINMENT OF STATE CLASSIFIED USES AND. THE 1983 FEDERAL GOAL
LAKES AND RESERVOIRS
FY 86 AND. FY 87
SAVANNAH BASIN

Bridge Creek Pond B 60 60 1 1 1 60
03136 I
Aiken Co
Clarks Hill Lake A 78,500 78,500 1 I i 78,500
031308 I
McCormick Co
Lake Hartwell A 61,350 61,350 1 I1 61,350
031312 1 1
Anderson Co
L" Oconee Co
Pickens Co

Lake Jocassee A 7,565 7,565 1 I 1 7,565
031314
Oconee Co

Lake Keowee A 18,372 18,372 1 I I 18,372
031314
Oconee Co

Langley Pond B 250 250 ITOX x IPS Ind I 250
031306 I I
Aiken Co
Lake Richard B. Russell A 26,653 26,653 1 I I 26,653
031310
Anderson Co

Lake Secession B 880 880 880
031310
Abbevllle Co

4.2.2. Clean Lakes Assessment

The South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental

Control conducted a lake classification survey of 40 publicly

owned lakes during 1980 - 1981 and produced a report in 1982

detailing the results of this survey. The purposes of the

survey were to determine the trophic status of the lakes studied

and to rank them as to priority for further study and restoration.

Lakes sampled for this survey were selected based on public

ownership and the possible impact their restoration would have

on the people of South Carolina and the nation. Table 4.2.H.

lists the lakes selected for study. Major lakes have a surface

area of 850 acres or greater and minor lakes have a surface

area less than 850 acres.-

Table 4.2.H.
Lake Name, Location, and Indication of Public Ownership

PUBLIC
flAME COUNTY LAT./LONG OWNERSHIP

Major Lakes

Lake William C. Bowen Spartanburg 35�06 1/832005' 2

Clarks Hill -Reservoir McCormick & 34040'/32013' 3
State of Georgia

Fishing Creek Reservoir Chester & Lancaster 34�39'/80�53' 4

Lake Greenwood Greenwood, New- 34�10'/81055' 4
berry & Laurens

Lake Hartwell Anderson, Pickens, 34032'/82050' 3
Oconee & State of
Georgia

Continued on next page.

Table 4.2.H. Continued

PUBLIC
NAIE COUNTY LAT./LONlG OWNEPRSHIIP

Lake Jocassee Oconee & Pickens 35000'/83000' 4

Lake Keowee Oconee & Pickens 34050'/82055' 4

Lake Marion Sumter, Clarendon, 33041'/80032' 1
Calhoun, Berkeley,
& Orangeburg

Monticello Reservoir Fairfield 34020'/83118' 4

Lake Moultrie Berkeley 33020'/80�05' 1

Lake Murray Lexington, Rich- 34003'/31013' 4
land, Saluda &
Newberry

Parr Reservoir Fairfield & 34016'/81021' 4
Newberry

Lake Robinson Chesterfield & 340�26'/80010' 4
Darlington

Lake Secession Abbeville & 34017'/82035' 2
Anderson

Lake Wateree Fairfield, Kershaw 34�25'/80050' 4
& Lancaster

Lake Wylie York & State of 35001'/81005' 4
(Lake Catawba) North Carolina

Minor Lakes

Ashwood Lake Lee 34006'/80019' 1

Boyd Mill Pond Laurens 34023'/32013' 4

Broadway Lake Anderson 34�27'/82�35.' 2

Lake Edgar A. Brown Barnwell 33015'/31022' 1

Lake Cherokee Cherokee 35002'/81035' 1

Chester State Park Lake Chester 34040'/81016' 1

Lake Tom Moore Craig Spartanburg 34052'/81050' 1

Continued on next page.

Table 4.2.H. Continued

PUBLIC
NtAPME COUNTY LAT./LONG OWNERSHIP

Eureka Lake Chesterfield 34�38'/79�54' 1

Lake Cunningham Greenville 34�59'/82�15' 2

Goodale State Park Lake Kershaw 34017'/80031' 1
(Adams Mill Pond)

Goose Creek Reservoir Berkeley 32057'/79043' 2

Lake Edwin Johnson Spartanburg 34�52'/81050' 1

Langley Pond Aiken 32032'/81050' 4
(Horse.Creek Pond)

Lake John B. Long Union 34048'/81030' 1

Lake Oliphant Chester 34�48'/81�11' 1

Prestwood Lake Darlington 34�24'/80005' 4

Reynolds Pond Aiken 33038'/81�42' 4

Rock and Cedar Creek Chester, Lancaster 32032'/80050' 4
Reservoir & Fairfield

Saluda Lake Greenville & Pickens 34�52'/82�29' 4

Lake Thicketty Cherokee 35005'/81�47' 1

Vaucluse Pond Aiken 33�37'/81�48' 4

Lake Wallace Marlboro 34�38'/79�41' 1

Lake Warren Hampton 32�50'/81�10' 1

Lake Yonah Oconee & State 34�41'/83�20' 4
of Georgia

Public Ownership

1 State Management Authority
2 Local Government Management Authority
3 Federal Management Authority
4 Private Management Authority, Offers Public Access

Lakes were sampled once per season: fall, winter, spring,

and summer, from October 1980 through August 1981. Trophic

status was determined using the National Eutrophication Survey

(NES) index and Carlson's trophic state index. The NES index is

a six parameter percentile index which uses data for total

phosphorus, inorganic nitrogen, secchi depth, chlorophyll a,

dissolved oxygen, and dissolved phosphorus. Carlson's index is a

single parameter trophic state index which may be'based on either

chlorophyll a, secchi depth, or total phosphorus. The NlES

trophic index and the Carlson chlorophyll a, secchi, and phos-

phorus trophic state indices were used to rank the 40 publicly

owned lakes according to trophic state. Table 4.2.I. is a

ranking of major lakes by trophic state. Table 4.2.J. is a

ranking of minor lakes by trophic state.

Table 4.2.1.

Ranking of Major Lakes by Trophic State

Rank Major Lakes Trophic Condition

1 Fishing Creek eutrophic
2 Wateree eutrophic
3 Greenwood eutrophic
4 Secession eutrophic
5 Wylie eutrophic
6 Hartwell eutrophic
7 Monticello eutrophic
8 Murray eutrophic
9 rloultrie eutrophic
10 Clarks Hill eutrophic
11 Bowen eutrophic
12 Marion eutrophic
13 Parr eutrophic
14 Jocassee eutrophic
15 Robinson eutrophic
16 Keowee eutrophic

Table 4.2.J.

Ranking of MIinor Lakes by Trophic State

Rank Major Lakes Trophic Condition

1 Boyd Mill Pond hypereutrophic
2 Rock and Cedar Creek eutrophic
3 Edgar A. Brown eutrophic
4 Warren eutrophic
5 Johnson eutrophic
6 Broadway eutrophic
7 Oliphant eutrophic
8 Chester eutrophic
9 Goose Creek eutrophic
10 Long eutrophic
11 Cherokee eutrophic
12 Langley eutrophic
13 Saluda eutrophic
14 Thicketty eutrophic
15 Cunningham eutrophic
16 Vaucluse eutrophic
17 Wallace eutrophic
18 Reynolds ' eutrophic
19 Craig eutrophic
20 Ashwood eutrophic
21 Prestwood . eutrophic
22 Goodale State Park eutrophic
23 Eureka eutrophic
24 Yonah eutrophic

To assess impaired recreational uses of the 40 publicly

owned lakes, DHEC mailed a questionnaire to 700 lake users. The

respondents were asked to provide reported uses, impaired uses,

and probable causes of use impairment. The probable causes are

varied, represent public opinion, and many were field verified

by DHEC personnel. Tables 4.2.K. and 4.2.L. present this

information on impaired lake uses. Please remember that the lists

of lakes with reported impaired uses were derived mainly from

public input. The Department has taken action to address the

problems which are within the Department's authority.

Table 4.2.K.

Publicly Owned Lakes With Impaired Recreational Uses
Major Lakes

Lake Impaired Use(s) Reported Causes

Clarks Hill F sedimentation, low water level, litter

Greenwood F turbidity,* low water level*, algal blooms*

Hartwell F,S low water level,* sediment, PCB, litter,
fishing pressure, sewage

Jocassee F low water level,* litter

Keowee F,S,B, low water level,* turbidity, litter, heat,
low food supply for fish

Marion F,S,B, weed growth,* litter, low water level, silt,
fishing pressure, shoreline development

Moultrie F weed in shallows,* litter, fishing pres-
sure, shoreline development

Murray F low water level,* sediment, fishing pres-
sure, low dissolved oxygen

Robinson S temperature

Secession F turbidity,* low water level, nonpoint
runoff

Wateree F,S,B litter

Wylie F,S,B, litter

F = fishing
S = swimming
B = boating
* = field verified

Table 4.2.L.

Publicly Owned Lakes With Impaired Recreational Uses
Minor Lakes

Lake Impaired Use(s) Reported Causes

Ashwood F,S weed growth,* silt, poor fish stocking
Broadway F,S,B silt,* weeds,* algae,* litter
Brown F algae,* weeds*
Chester S sediment, weeds*
Goose Creek F,S,B weeds,* algae,* litter
Langley F,S,B pollution, weeds
Prestwood F,S,B weeds*
Reynolds F,S weeds,* sediment
Rock & Cedar F,S color increase from point source
Thicketty F,B --
Wallace F weeds,* algae*
Warren F weeds,* alage*

F = fishing
S = swimming
B = boating
* = field verified

There are no lakes in South Carolina with known impacts from

acid deposition or acid mine drainage.

4.3. Tidal Saltwaters

South Carolina has approximately 2155 square miles of tidal

saltwaters including marshes. These tidal saltwaters were assessed

using water quality data collected at 63 DHEC monitoring stations

representing 616 square miles. The assessment also included

information on shellfish harvest status as determined by DHEC's

Shellfish Sanitation Program. The strategic location of these

monitoring stations allows the determination of water quality

for these waters to provide a representative picture of the overall

water quality of South Carolina's tidal saltwaters.

4.3.1. Summary of Assessment

Determination of attainment of State classified uses and

the goals of the Clean Water Act for individual waterbodies

are presented in Tables 4.3.E. - 4.3.H. at the end of this

section concerning the assessment of tidal saltwaters.

Table 4.3.A.
Attainment of State Classified Uses
Tidal Saltwaters - Reported as Square Miles
FY 1986 - FY 1987

Basin Assessed Full Partial Not

Pee Dee 14.4 9.1 2.6 2.7

Santee Cooper 180.2 120.8 4.7 54.7

Edisto Combahee 466.9 451.2 10.7 5.0

Savannah 1.7 1.7 -- -

Statewide 663.2 582.8 18.0 62.4

% Attainment
Statewide 88% 3% 9%

Table 4.3.B.
Attainment of CWA Goals
Tidal Saltwaters - Reported as Square Miles
FY 1986 - FY 1987

Basin Assessed Fish/Swim Fishable Swimmable Neither

Pee Dee 14.4 .13.3 14.4 13.3 0

Santee Cooper 180.2 160.2 160.2 180.2 0

Edisto Combahee 466.9 442.6 463.9 442.6 3.0

Sav 1.7 0 1.7 0 0

Statewide 663.2 616.1 640.2 636.1 3.0

% Attainment
Statewide 93% 96' 96% < 1%

Table 4.3.C.

Probable Causes of Partial or Non-Attainment of Classified Uses
Tidal Saltwaters Statewide
FY 1986- FY 1987

Square Miles % of Non-Attaining

Low dissolved oxygen 21.45 27%

Fecal coliform contamination 58.95 73%

pH contraventions 0 0

Toxics accumulation 0 0

Unknown 0 0

80.4

Table 4.3.D.

Probable Sources of Partial or Non-Attainment of Classified Uses
Tidal Saltwaters Statewide
FY 1986 - FY 1987

Square Miles % of Non-Attaining % of Assessed

Point Sources 0 0 0

Nonpoint Sources 80.4 100% 11%

Agriculture 11.0
Urban runoff 48.2
Forests 21.2
Hydrologic Modification --
Unknown --

Unknown Sources --

Total Square Miles 80.4 11%
Partially or not attaining

Total Square Miles Assessed 707.7

TABLE 4.3.E.
ATTAINMENT OF STATE CLASSIFIED USES AND THE 1983 FEDERAL GOAL
TIDAL SALTWATERS
FY 86 AND FY 87
PEE DEE BASIN

STATE CLASSIFIED USES I 1983 FEDERAL GOAL
SQUARE MILES PARTIALLY NOT ICAUSE ISOURCE I NOT FISHABLE SWIMMABLE
WATERBObY CLASS ASSESSED) ATTAINED ATTAINED ATTAINED I MAJOR MINOR I TYPE ATTAINED ATTAINED ONLY ONLY

Black River SB 0.6 0.6 1 I I 0.6
030706 I I
Georgetown Co I I
Little River SA 2.7 2.7 IFC x INPS UR I 1.6 1.1
030715 I. I
Horry Co
o Murrells Inlet SA 2.6 2.6 IFC x INPS UR I 2.6
030704 Docks I
Georgetown Co I
* I I I
North Inlet SA 2.2 2.2 2.2
030704
Georgetown Co
Sampit River SC 1.' 1.1 I I I 1.1
030702
Georgetown Co
Turkey Creek SC 0.2 0.2 1 0.2
030702
Georgetown Co
Whites Creek SC 0.1 0.1 I I .1
030702
Georgetown CO
Winyah Bay SC 4.9 4.9 1 4.9
030702
Georgetown Co

TABLE 4.3.F.
ATTAINMENT OF STATE CLASSIFIED USES AND THE 1983 FEDERAL GOAL
TIDAL SALTIATERS
FY 86 AND FY 87
SANTEE-COOPER BASIN

STATE CLASSIFIED USES I 1983 FEDERAL GOAL
SQUARE MILES PARTIALLY NOT ICAUSE ISOURCE I NOT FISHABLE SWIMMABLE
WATERBODY CLASS ASSESSED ATTAINED ATTAINED ATTAINED I MAJOR MINOR I TYPE ATTAINED ATTAINED ONLY ONLY

Ashle River SC 14.5 14.5 1 I I 12.2 2.3
030818-14 I I
Charleston Co I
Bulls Bay SA 8.0 8.0 I I 8.0
030806
Charleston Co
Charleston Harbor SC 4.2 4.2 I I I 4.2
030814 1 1
Charleston Co I

Cooper River SC 19.7 19.7 I I I 19.7
030820-10-14 1 I I
Berkeley & Chtn Cos
Cooter Creek SA 1.2 1.2 IDO x INPS Forest I 1.2
030806 1
Charleston Co I
The Cove SC 0.3 0.3 I I 0.3
030814 I
Charleston Co I
Elliott Cut SC 3.5 3,5 IDO x INPS UR I 3.5
030814 I I
Charleston Co I I
I I I
Goose Creek SC 14.2 14.2 IFC x INPS UR I 14.2
Berkeley Co
Intracoastal Waterway 5A 0.1 0.1 I I 0.1
030o806 I ICo
Charltstoon Co I

TABLE 4.3.F.
ATTAINMENT OF STATE CLASSIFIED USES AND THE 1983 FEDERAL GOAL
TIDAL SALTWATERS
FY 86 AND FY 87
SANTEE-COOPER BASIN
=-=-========- ====-===-=------ -===========-==-======---=----=-==---============================== ==============================-===-=

Kiawah River SA 41.8 41.8 1 I 1 41.8
030814 1 1 1
Charleston Co I

Shen Creek SC 0.4 0.4 1 1 1 0.4
030814 I
Charleston Co I
' South Santee River SA 18.0 18.0 IFC x INPS Forest i 18.0
030802 I I Ag
Georgetown Co I I
.~~ ~~I II
Stono River SA 28.3 5.8 22.5 IFC x INPS UR I 28.3
030814 IDO x I
Charleston Co I I I
I I
Wando River SB 26.0 26.0 I I 1 26.0
030802
Berkeley & Chtn Cos I

TABLE 4.3.G.

ATTAINMENT OF STATE CLASSIFIED USES AND THE 1983 FEDERAL GOAL
TIDAL SALTWATERS
FY 86 AND FY 87
EDISTO-COMBAHEE BASIN

Beaufort River SB 9.6 9.6 1 1 1 9.6
030920-26 SA 21.5 21.5 I I 1 21.5
beaufort Co
Bees Creek SC 13.3 13.3 I I 1 13.3
030926 1 1
Jasper Co I I
Bohicket Creek SA 2.7 2.7. IFC x INPS UR 2.7
030902 1 1 1
Charleston Co I I
I I
Calibogue Sound SA 25.0 25.0 I 1 25.0
030926 1 I
Beaufort Co I I
Chechessee River SA 15.9 15.9 I 15.9
030926 1 1
Beaufort Co I I
Colleton River SAA 29.3 29.3 1 1 1 29.3
030926 1 1 1
Beaufort Co I I
Combahee/St.Helena Snd SA 108.5 108.5 1 1 108.5
030920
Beaufort Co
Coosawhatchie/Broad Rvrs SA 55.9 53.9 2.0 IFC x INPS Ag 1 55.9
030930-26 1
Beautort Co I
I I I
Dawhoo River SA 9.8 9.8 I 1 9.8
030902
Charleston Co I

TABLE 4.3.G.
ATTAINMENT OF STATE CLASSIFIED USES AND THE 1983 FEDERAL GOAL
TIDAL SALTWATERS
FY 86 AND FY 87
EDISTO-COMBAHEE BASIN

STATE CLASSIFIED USES I 1983 FEDERAL GOAL
SOUARE MILES PARTIALLY NOT ICAUSE ISOURCE I NOT FISHABLE SWIMMABLE
WATERBODY CLASS ASSESSED ATTAINED ATTAINED ATTAINED I 9AJOR MINOR I TYPE ATTAINED ATTAINED ONLY ONLY

May River SAA 24.6 24.6 I I 1 24.6
030926 I I
Beaufort Co I I
New River SB 8.0 8.0 IDO x INPS Forest I 8.0
030928 IFC x
Jasper Co I I
I I I
h North Edisto River SAA 53.3 53.3 1 1 1 53.3
(130902 1 1 1
Charleston Co J
Pocotaligo River SA 3.0 3.0 IDO x INPS Forest 1 3.0
030926 IFC x I
Beaufort River I I
I I i
Port Royal Sound SA 25.3 25.3 1 1 1 25.3
030926 I I
Beaufort Co
Skull Creek SA 6.9 6.9 1 I 1 6.9
030926 I I
Beaufort Co I I
South Edisto River SAA 9.2 9.2 1 I 1 9.2
030904 1 1 1
Charleston Co I I I
Trenchards Inlet SA 25.8 25.8 1 I 1 25.8
030926 1 I
Beaufort Co I
Wriaie Branch SA 18.9 18.9 I 1 1 18.9
030920
leaufort Co I

TABLE 4.3.H.
ATTAINMENT OF STATE CLASSIFIED USES AND THE 1983 FEDERAL GOAL
TIDAL SALTWATERS
FY 86 AND FY 87

SAVANNAH BASIN

STATE CLASSIFIED USES I 1983 FEDERAL GOAL

SQUARE MILES PARTIALLY NOT ICAUSE ISOURCE I NOT FISHABLE SWIMMABLE
WATERBODY CLASS ASSESSED ATTAINED ATTAINED ATTAINED I MAJOR MINOR I TYPE I ATTAINED ATTAINED ONLY ONLY

Savannah River B 1.7 1.7 I 1 I 1.7
031302 I 1 I
Jasper Co I I I

co
<nox

4.3.2. Management of Shellfish Growing Waters

The goal of the Shellfish Sanitation Program in South Carolina is

to ensure that shellfish and the areas from which they are harvested

meet the health and environmental quality standards provided by

federal and state regulations, laws, and guidelines. Additionally,

the Department promotes and encourages coastal quality management

programs consistent with protected uses. established through the State

water classifications and standards program. Shellfish Sanitation

Program management is also determined by State Regulation 61-47 and

State law. Operational manuals adopted by the Interstate Shellfish

Sanitation Conference (ISSC) and adopted and utilized by the U.S. Food

and Drug Administration are also used as guidelines in implementing

the State program. During periodic revisions of Regulation 61-47,

portions of those guidelines are incorporated into the regulations as

appropriate.

Sanitary surveys are conducted by DHEC to determine the har-

vesting classifications of the State's coastal waters. These surveys

result in harvesting classifications describedas follows:

Approved: Areas where a sanitary survey indicates that the
water is not contaminated with fecal material,
pathogenic microorganisms, or poisonous and dele-
terious substances in concentrations dangerous to
human health. The fecal coliform NIPN median does
not exceed 14/100 ml in the water and 10 percent
of the samples do not exceed 43/100 ml.

Conditional: Areas generally of the same quality as approved
areas; however, the quality may temporarily vary
because of sporadic impacts from non-point and
point sources, rainfall, or seasonal activities.
Shellfish may be harvested for marketing under
conditions specified in a management plan.

Restricted: Areas where a sanitary survey indicates there is a
limited degree of pollution which rende rs the
shellfish unsafe for direct marketing. The shell-
fish may be marketed after relaying or depuration.

The median fecal coliform levels in restricted
waters are between 14 and 83/100 ml with not more
than 10 percent of the samples exceeding 260/100
ml.

Prohibited: Areas where a sanitary survey indicates excessive
concentrations of pollutants exist or where the
potential exists for excessive pollutant concen-
trations. The median fecal coliform UPN exceeds
88/100 ml in the water or more than 10 percent of
the samples exceed 260/100 ml. Shellfish may not
be harvested from prohibited areas for human food
use. Closed safety zones may be established
around potential pollutant sources and are clas-
sified as prohibited areas.

Table 4.3.1. presents the current shellfish harvesting clas-

sifications of coastal shellfish growing areas in South Carolina, the

cause of closure if the area is not unconditionally approved, and the

pollutant source responsible for the closure. Tables 4.3.J. and

4.3.K. show shellfish area closures due to closed safety zones around

point source discharges and marinas in Class SA waters. Closed safety

zones are established -adjacent to all actual or potential sources of

contamination and are classified as prohibited. These areas are not

an indication of a lesser water quality but rather an indication of

areas which have the potential for variable water quality. As a

result, the areas within closed safety zones are closed to shellfish

harvesting as a measure to protect public health.

The reported acreages include all shellfish growing waters and

associated marshes measured from NOAA navigational charts 11535,

11532, 11531, 11521, 11513, 11517, and 11519 using a Compensating

Polar Planimeter.

Table 4.3.I.

STATUS OF SHELLFISH AREAS IN SOUTH CAROLINA
(Waterbodies listed in geographical order from North to South on coastline)

March 1, 1988
Use Sanitary Shellfish Cause Pollutant
Waterbody Acres Classification Harvest Status for Closure Source

Little River 1337 SA Restricted FC PS, NPS

Atlantic Intracoastal
Waterway (AIWIW) to Hwy #9
bridge) 969 A Prohibited FC. PS, NPS

Cherry Grove/Hog Inlet 1357 SA Conditionally Approved Rainfall, FC rPS

Singleton Swash 51 SA Prohibited FC NPS

Whitepoint Swash 92 SA Prohibited FC NPS

Cane Patch Creek 20 SA Prohibited FC NPS

Withers Swash 30 SA Prohibited FC' NPS

f1i dway Swash 15 SA Prohibited FC NPS

Miurrells Inlet 3302 SA Conditionally Approved Rainfall, FC NPS

Hurrells Inlet Public
Grounds - North A SA Conditionally Approved FC NPS
- South SA Conditionally Approved Rainfall, FC NPS

rlurrells Inlet -
Parsonage Creek 30 SA Restricted FC NIPS

FC = fecal coliform bacteria
PS = point source
NPS = non-point source
A = acreage includes all waterbodies with this notation

Table 4.3.I. (continued)

STATUS OF SHELLFISH AREAS IN SOUTH CAROLINA

March 1, 1988
Use Sanitary Shellfish Cause Pollutant
Wadterbody Acres Classification Harvest Status for Closure Source

Mlurrells Inlet - all other
tributaries adjacent to
mainland and connneting
to Parsonage Creek 5 SA Restricted FC NPS

Hidway Inlet - North behind
Litchfield Beach 602 SA Restricted FC NPS
___ __�-__ ___ ____-_ _-_-__ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ __ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___------------------ ----------�
South behind Pawleys 1122 SA Conditionally Approved FC NPS
Island to Pawleys Inlet

North Inlet 6454 Approved
' North Inlet - Debordieu Ck. 410 SA Restricted FC NPS

North Inlet area adjacent , 3603 SC Restricted FC NPS
to tlud Bay

North Inlet 1071 SA Conditionally Approved High River & NPS
Rainfall Levels

Sampit River 576 SC Prohibited CSZ PS
Winyah Bay 10,356 SC Prohibited CSZ PS

Winyah Bay 13,339 SC Restricted FC PS, NPS

Mud Bay B SC Restricted FC PS, NPS

FC = fecal coliform bacteria
PS = point source
lIPS = non-point source
B = acreage includes all water bodies with this notation
CSZ = closed safety zone

Table 4.3.I. (continued)

STATUS OF SHELLFISH AREAS IN SOUTH CAROLINA

March 1, 1988
Use Sanitary Shellfish Cause Pollutant
Waterbody Acres Classification Harvest Status for Closure Source

Atlantic Intracoastal 2,178 SB Prohibited FC PS, NIPS
Waterway (AIWW) (Winyah
Bay to North Santee River)

Santee Bay (north & South) 20,165 SB Restricted FC NPS
from Highway 17 to 1000
feet below the AIWW

Santee Bay (North & South) 13,158 SA Restricted FC tiPS
from 1000 feet below AIWW
to Atlantic Ocean

Cape Romain 13,117c SA Restricted FC HPS

Cape Romain and Bull Bay 48,094 SA Approved

AIWW (South Santee River
to Jeremy Island) C SA Restricted FC NPS

AIJWW (Jeremy Island to
Sewee Bay) D SA Approved

Jereimy Creek 377 SA Prohibited CSZ Boat Docks

Awendaw Creek 581 'SA Conditional closed FC NPS

FC = fecal coliform bacteria
CSZ = closed safety zone
RIPS = non-point source
C = acreage includes all waterbodies with this notation
D = acreage includes all waterbodies with this notation

Table 4.3.I. (continued)

STATUS OF SHELLFISH AREAS IN SOUTH CAROLINA

March 1, 1988
Use Sanitary Shellfish Cause Pollutant
Waterbody Acres Classification Harvest Status for Closure Source

Tibwin Creek 255 SA Conditional closed FC NPS

AIWW (Sewee Bay to
Conch Creek) 31,514E SA Approved

Sewee Bay E SA Approved

Bull Harbor E SA Approved

Mark Bay E SA Approved

Copahee Sound E SA Approved

Bullyard Sound E SA Approved

Hamlin Sound E SA Approved

Grays Bay Sound E SA Approved

All creeks and marshes of -
Prices Inlet SA Approved
Capers Inlet E SA Approved
Dewee Inlet SA Approved

FC = fecal coliform bacteria
PS = point source
NPS = non-point source
E = acreage includes all waterbodies with this notation

Table 4.3.I. (continued)

STATUS OF SHELLFISH AREAS IN SOUTH CAROLINA

Mlarch 1, 1988
Use Sanitary Shellfish Cause Pollutant
Waterbody Acres Classification Harvest Status for Closure Source

All waters of Breach
Inlet Estuary Including:
Hamlin Creek (west of AIWW) SA Approved
Swinton Creek SA Approved
Inlet Creek (west of AIWlJ) SA Approved
Conch Creek west of AIWW1 SA Approved

Inlet Creek & Conch Creek
(east of AIIWI) 476 SA Restricted FC NPS, Harbor
Influence

Hamlri Creek (east
of AIWW) 320 SA Restricted FC NPS, Harbor
Influence

AIWW (between Conch Creek
& Ben Sawyer Bridge) 163 SA Restricted FC PS, NPS,
Harbor Influence
---------------------------------F------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Cove 1132 SC Restricted FC PS, NPS,
Harbor Influence

AIWW (Ben Sawyer Bridge to PS, NPS,
the Cove) F SC Restricted FC Harbor Influence

Wando River (Headwdters to
1000 feet above Cainhoy 5375 SB Restricted FC PS, NPS
Bridge

FC = fecal coliform bacteria
PS = point source
NPS = non-point source
D = acreage includes all waterbodies with this notation

Table 4.3.I. (continued)

STATUS OF SHELLFISH AREAS IN SOUTH CAROLINA

March 1, 1988
Use Sanitary Shellfish Cause Pollutant
Waterbody Acres Classification Harvest Status for Closure Source

Wando River (from 1000 feet
above Cainhoy Bridge to 12,821 SB Conditional closed FC PS, NPS
Cooper River Bridge)
including Nowell &
Horlbeck Creeks

Charleston Harbor 8,027 SC Prohibited CSZ PS

Cooper River 14,794 SC Prohibited CSZ PS

Shem Creek 367 SC Prohibited FC ,CSZ NPS - Marinas

Ashley River 8,160 SC Prohibited CSZ PS

Schooner Creek Bay
and Clarks Sound 3,958 SC Restricted FC NPS, PS

James Island Creek
& Kushiwah Creek 1,744 SC Prohibited CSZ PS

Wapoo/Elliott Cut 898 SC Prohibited CSZ PS

Stono River (Pleasant
Point to and including
Abbapoola Creek) 14,130 SA Restricted FC PS, NPS

FC = fecal coliform bacteria
PS = point source
NPS = non-point source
CSZ = closed safety.zone
* = included in Charleston Harbor and Stono River

Table 4.3.4. (continued)

STATUS OF SHELLFISH AREAS IN SOUTH CAROLINA

March 1, 1988
Use Sanitary Shellfish Cause Pollutant
JWaterbody Acres Classification Harvest Status for Closure Source

Lighthouse Inlet Estuary 10,73314 SA Approved

Folly River Estuary H SA Approved

Kiawah River, Sams Creek,
Stono Inlet, Stono 14,474 SA Approved
River, and Abbapoola
Creek to Folly River

Morth Edisto River 35,105 SA Approved

Leadenwah Creek I SA Approved

Wadmalaw River I SA Approved

Stono River (Pleasant
Point to Goshen Pt.) I SA Approved

Steam Boat Creek I SA Approved

Russell Creek I SA Approved

Toogoodoo Creek I SA Approved

Dawho River (from North
Edisto to Hwy 174 bridge) I SA Approved

PS = point source
riPS = non-point source
E = acreage includes all waterbodies with this notation

Table 4.3.I. (continued)

STATUS OF SHELLFISH AREAS IN SOUTH CAROLINA

March 1, 1988
Use Sanitary Shellfish Cause Pollutant
Waterbody Acres Classification Harvest Status for Closure Source

Wadmalaw Sound I SA Approved

Bohicket Creek I SA Approved

Church Creek I SA Approved

Church Creek (front Raven
Point to Hoopstick Island) 1,601 SA Prohibited FC ,CZS PS, NPS

South Edisto River 30,150 SA Approved

Fishing Creek (except
m described below) J SA Approved

Fishing Creek fronm
"The Neck" to Freedman 450 SA Restricted FC lNPS

St. Helena Sound 53,578 SA Approved

Combahee River_-- K SA Approved

Ashepoo River K SA Approved

Coosaw River K SA Approved

FC = fecal coliform bacteria
PS = point source
NPS = non-point source
E = acreage includes all waterbodies with this notation

Table 4.3.I. (continued)

STATUS OF SHELLFISH AREAS IN SOUTH CAROLINA

March 1, 1988
Use Sanitary Shellfish Cause Pollutant
Waterbody Acres Classification Harvest Status for Closure Source

Whale Branch from Huspa
Creek to Halfmoon Creek 1209 SA Restricted FC PS, NPS

Whale Branch 6411 SA Approved

Campbell Creek 217 SA Prohibited CSZ PS

Halfmoon Creek 393 SA Prohibited CSZ PS

Huspa Creek 1609 SA Conditionally Approved FC , Rainfall NPS

McCalleys Creek 2193 SA Prohibited CSZ PS

Middle Creek 510 SA Restricted FC NPS, PS

Brickyard Creek 1612 SA Prohibited CSZ PS

Albergottie Creek 1142 SB Prohibited CSZ PS

Beaufort River from
Albergottie Creek 8150 SB Prohibited CSZ PS
to Ballast Creek &
Chowan Creek

FC = fecal coliform bacteria
CSZ = closed safety zone
PS = point source
FIPS = non-point source

Table 4.3.I. (continued)

STATUS OF SHELLFISH AREAS IN SOUTH CAROLINA

March 1, 1988
Use Sanitary Shellfish Cause Pollutant
Waterbody Acres Classification Harvest Status for Closure Source

Beaufort River from Ballast
Creek to Chowan Creek 8690 SA Approved
to Port Royal Sound

Chowan Creek 4835 SA Approved

Battery Creek 2458 SA Prohibited CSZ PS
1081 SB Prohibited CSZ PS

Archer Creek from Port
Royal to Parris Island 683 SB Prohibited CSZ PS
Bridge

Archer Creek fronl Parris
.Island Bridge to 1000 ft
above Parris Island
Bridge 102 SA Prohibited CSZ PS

Archer Creek from 1000
feet below Parris Island 1927 SA Approved
Bridge to Port Royal Sound

Mrorgan River Estuary 60,021L SA Approved

CSZ = closed safety zone
PS = point source
NPS = non-point source
F = acreage includes all waterbodies with this notation

Table 4.3.I. (continued)

STATUS OF SHELLFISH AREAS IN SOUTH CAROLINA

Mlarch 1, 1988
Use Sanitary Shellfish Cause Pollutant
Waterbody Acres Classification Harvest Status for Closure Source

Harbor River (St. Helena
to Fripp Island) L SA Approved

Trenchards Inlet Estuary L SA Approved

Station Creek L SA Approved

Lucy Point Creek 898 SA Restricted FC NPS,
Agriculture

Fripp Island Canal 255 SA Prohibited FC tNPS

Rock Spring Creek to
its junction with I II SA Restricted FC tPS
Lucy Point Creek

Broad River and Port Royal
Sound (except for
closed safety zone at 58,674N SA Approved
Laurel Bay S/D WTP)

Chechessee River N SA Approved

Hazzard Creek/Euhaw Creek N SA Approved

FC = fecal coliform bacteria
F = acreage includes all waterbodies with this notation
G = acreage includes dll wdterbodies with this notation

Table 4.3.I. (continued)

STATUS OF SHELLFISH AREAS IN SOUTH CAROLINA

larch 1, 1988
Use Sanitary Shellfish Cause Pollutant
Waterbody Acres Classification Harvest Status for Closure Source

Colleton River 12,220N SAA Approved

Okatie River &
Chechessee Creek [l SAA Approved

flay River 15,431 SAA Approved

Cooper River 0 SAA/SA Approved

Bull Creek 0 SAA Approved

New River and Wright 12,281 SB Restricted FC NPS, Savannah
River River Influence

New River arnd Wright 14,423 SA Approved
River

Calibogue Sound 21,083r SB Approved

-------------------------------------
Sdckay Creek P SA Approved

Skull Creek P SA Approved

'-Jarvis Creek P SA Approved

Broad Creek/Palmetto Bay P SA Approved

FC = fecal coliform bacteria
NPS = non-point source
F = acreage includes all waterbodies with this notation
H = acreage includes all waterbodies with this notation

Table 4.3.I. (continued)

STATUS OF SHELLFISH AREAS IN SOUTH CAROLINA

March 1, 1988
Use Sanitary Shellfish Cause Pollutant
Waterbody Acres Classification Harvest Status for Closure Source

Broad Creek 245 SA Conditionally Approved FC PS

Baynard Cove 834 SA Prohibited CSZ larinas

Lawton Creek Q SA Prohi bited CSZ PS

Braddock Creek Q SA Prohibited CSZ Marinas

CSZ = closed safety zone
PS = point source
rIPS = non-point source

Table 4.3.J.

Prohibited Shellfish Harvesting Areas in Class SA Waters
Due to Closed Safety Zones Around Point Source Discharges

Closed Safety
Facility Waterbody Location County Zone Acreage

Parris Island Marine Base Archers Creek Beaufort 4,426A
Battery Creek H.S. Battery Creek Beaufort A
Beaufort Battery Creek Beaufort A
Cherry Hill Battery Creek Beaufort A
Dowlingwood Battery Creek Beaufort A
Palmetto Apartments Battery Creek Beaufort A
Parris Island Battery Creek Beaufort A
Laurel Bay Broad River Beaufort 121
Lobeco Chemical Campbell Creek Beaufort 217
James J. Davis Elemn. School Halfmoon Creek Beaufort 393
Sea Pines PSb Lawton Ck/Broad Ck Beaufort 561
Wam Chemical McCalley Creek Beaufort 2,193

Dunmovin Church Creek Tributary Charleston 3.0*
St. Johns/Angel Oak School Church Creek Tributary Charleston 3.0*
Sea Island Health Care Church Creek Triubtary Charleston 3.0*
Isle of Palms and
Forest Trails AIWW Charleston 173
Buzzards Roost Stono River Charleston 25*
St. Andrews PSD and
Savage Road Stono River Charleston 25*
Swygert Shipyard Stono River Charleston 25*
Baptist Hills HS Toogoodoo Creek Charleston 3.0

* = in prohibited or restricted SA waters
A = acreage includes all waterbodies with this notation

Table 4.3.K.

Prohibited Shellfish Harvesting Areas in Class SA Waters
Due to Closed Safety Zones Around Marinas

Closed Safety
Marina Waterbody Location County Zone Acreage

Baynard Cove Baynard Cove Beaufort 110A
Gull Point Community Dock Braddock Cove Beaufort 163
South Breech Braddock Cove Beaufort A
Broad Creek Broad Creek Beaufort 60
Long Cove Broad Creek Beaufort 60
Palmetto Bay Broad Creek Beaufort 83
Shelter Cove Broad Creek Beaufort 64
Wexford Harbor Broad Creek Beaufort 30
Harbor Town Calibogue Sound Beaufort 59
Windmill Harbor Calibogue Sound Beaufort 36
Cooper River Cooper River Beaufort 63
Moss Creek Moss Creek Beaufort 59
Fripp Island Old House Creek Beaufort 56
Hilton Head Docking Facility Skull Creek Beaufort 48
Outdoor Resorts Skull Creek Beaufort 60
Skull Creek Skull Creek Beaufort 90
Villages on Skull Creek Skull Creek Beaufort 57
Big Bay Marina & Misc. Docks Big Bay Creek Charleston 530
Botany Bay & Misc. Docks Adams Creek/
North Edisto River Charleston 6.0
Bohicket Bohicket Creek Charleston 76
Folly Marina Folly River Charleston 54
Crosby Commercial Dock Folly Creek Charleston 57
Bowen Island Marina Railway Folly Creek Charleston 50
Backman Commercial Dock Backman Creek Charleston 50
Breech Inlet and
Texaco Marina Breech Inlet Charleston 45
Mariners Cay Folly River Charleston 58
Carolina Seafood Dock,
Bull Bay Seafood Dock and Jeremy Creek/ Charleston 377
Miscellaneous Shrimp Docks AINW
Wild Dunes Morgan Creek Charleston 14*
Buzzard Roost Stono River Charleston 52*
Stono Stono River Charleston 33*
Marlin Quay lurrells Inlet Georgetown 77*
Captain Dick's and Parsonage Creek/
Inlet Point Main Creek Georgetown 34*

* = in restricted SA waters
A = acreage includes all waterbodies with this notation

Table 4.3.L.

Acreages of Shellfish Waters in Each
Water Use Classification

Use Shellfish % pf % of
Classification Status Acreage Total Waters Class SAA & SA

SAA and SA Approved 419,394 66 86

SA Conditional 9,542 1.5 2

SA Restricted 46,865 7 9.5

SA Prohibited-CSZ 11,066 2 2

SA Prohibited-PUQ 2,064 1 1
488,931 total acreage in Class SAA & SA

SB Approved 14,423 2

SB Conditional 12,821 2

SB Restricted 39,999 6

SB Prohibited-CSZ 11,056 2
78,299 total acreage in Class SB

SC Restricted 22,032 3

SC Prohibited-CSZ 44,922 7
66,954 total acreage in Class SC

* A Prohibited 969 <1

635,153 total acreage in Shellfish Waters

* The Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway (Little River) is presently classified
incorrectly with a use classification of Class A. The Department will be
initiating an effort to correct this discrepancy.

Acreages in Table 4.3.1. for each water use classification and each

shellfish harvest status as well as closed safety zone acreages in Tables

4.3.J. and 4.3.K. were tallied to show total acreages of open and closed

shellfish waters statewide for each water use classification. These figures

are presented in Table 4.3.L.

Approximately 86% of Class SAA and Class SA waters are unconditionally

approved for shellfish harvesting. This indicates an 8% decrease from the

FY 1984-85 305(b) report which estimated that 94% of Class SAA and Class SA

shellfish waters were unconditionally approved. for shellfish harvesting.

Although this reduction appears to indicate a degradation of water quality in

shellfish waters, two distinctly different factors are actually responsible

for this reduction. The Santee River Rediversion Project has altered water

quality in the Class SA portions of South Santee and Cape Romain and

subsequent shellfish harvesting classification changes in this area are

responsible for 6% of the decrease. The remaining 2% reduction does not

relate to water quality changes but rather to more precise methods of

measurement used in acreage determination.

Approximately 2% of Class SAA and Class SA waters are conditionally

approved and less than 10% of Class SAA and Class SA waters are closed to

shellfish harvesting due to closed safety zones or poor water quality.

An evaluation of all shellfish growing waters, regardless of use

classification, reveals that approximately 66% of these waters are approved

for shellfish harvesting. Approximately 23% of all saltwaters are Class SB

and Class SC and are not protected for shellfish harvesting. Less than 3% of

the shellfish closures, when considering all class saltwaters, are due to

activitieswhich cause closures in Class SA waters.

4.3.3. Estuary Case Study - Stono River

A water quality assessment of the Stono River was conducted

by the Stream and Facility Monitoring Section of the South

Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (SCDHEC)

during August 27-29, 1985. The Stono River is located just south

and west of Charleston, South Carolina, and connects the Atlantic

Ocean to Wadmalaw Sound. The River is located in the Charleston

Harbor sub-basin (03-08-14). The entire reach of the Stono River

from the Atlantic Ocean (Stonq Inlet) to Wadmalaw Sound is clas-

sified as Class SA waters. Figure 4.3.A. depicts the study area.

Sampling stations were established at numerous points along

the Stono River and at selected major tributaries--the Kiawah

River, Elliott Cutt, Wappoo Creek and Rantowles Creek. Also,

three wastewater treatment facilities that discharge to the Stono

River were included in the sampling station network. These were

the Buzzards Roost Marina (NPDES No. SC0035556), Swygert Shipyard

(NPDES No. SC037770), and St. Andrews Public Service District/

Savage Road (NPDES No. SC0026051) wastewater treatment facil-

ities.

Samples were collected from each stream station and facility

effluent by the grab method on daylight high and low tides during

August 27-29, 1985, for analyses of various physical, chemical and

bacteriological parameters. Live oysters (Crassostrea virginica)

were also collected daily at low tide from selected stations and

analyzed for various bacteriological parameters. In addition to

the high tide/low tide sampling at the wastewater treatment

facilities, compliance sampling inspections and operation and

maintenance inspections were conducted to ascertain NPDES permit

MD-202

MD-727
NORTH N
STONO RIVER
1 inch = 1.2 miles

MD-728 0 1 2
WADMALAW SOUND STONO RIVER

MD-729
MD-730
Swygert Shipyard St. Andrews PSD/Savage Road
MD-731

1MD-732

MD-025

Pennys Creek 9 MD-733 W/yappoo Creek
MMD-734

Figure 4.3.A. Buzzards Roost Elliot C
Station Locations in Assessment Area Marina MDo02S
A Water Quality Assessment of the Stono River
Charleston County, South Carolina /ASHLEY RIVER
August 27-29, 1985
CHARLESTON HARBOR
MD-736

STONO RIVER

MD 737

Abbapoola Creek
MD-7 38

MD-206
KIAWAH RIVER
MD-739 %

South Carolina Map with
MD-2-07~ g< ~ ii~nCharleston County Shaded

t(3< Green Creek
MD-208

ATLANTIC OCEAN

compliance performance of the facilities during the assessment

period. A trend analysis of the historical water quality data

base from several stations along the Stono River was also con-

ducted.

Data collected during this assessment showed no contraven-

tions of the Class SA quality standards for pH or temperature at

any station in the area. Dissolved oxygen levels were, on the

face, below the State quality criterion; however, analysis of

these data revealed the levels to be indicative of natural water

quality of that estuarine system. When the concentration data

were normalized to percent saturation data, satisfactory levels

were observed that were comparable to levels seen in other

estuarine river systems in the State.

The State quality standard for total coliform bacteria was

contravened at eleven of sixteen stations in the Stono River and

at three of the four tributaries (all except the Kiawah River).

The five stations which did not contravene standards were nearest

the Atlantic Ocean. The largest median total coliform density in

the Stono River occurred in the upper-middle portion west of the

entrances to Elliott Cut and Uappoo Creek. The largest median

density recorded in the entire assessment area was in Wappoo

Creek near its confluence with the Stono River where the median

density was approximately two and one-half times greater than the

largest median density in the Stono River. The median level

observed in Elliott Cut was essentially equivalent to the largest

median density seen in the Stono River. The major contributing

source to the overall bacteriological water quality in the Stono

River was determined to be in the input of Ashley River/Charleston

Harbor water via Elliott Cut and Wappoo Creek along with the

natural input from the developed Wappoo Creek drainage basin.

Analysis of shellfish tissue from five stations in the river

revealed no contraventions of State quality standards or appro-

priate Federal criteria. Furthermore, there were no significant

differences (p.>O.05) in bacterial burden between any of the

stations.

Hydrological reconnaissances were conducted in the upper

part of the Stono River during June 13-14, 1985, to determine the

dilution and dispersion characteristics of that portion of the

system. These reconnaissances demonstrated substantial dilution

capacity in the Stono River on ebbing tide but diminished

capacity on flooding tide. Likewise, the dilution capacity of

Elliott Cut was diminished on flooding tide which is the same

portion of the tidal cycle that delivers the Ashley River/

Charleston Harbor system water to the upper portion of the Stono

River. This diminished dilution capacity in both the Stono River

and ElliQtt Cut concurrent with the input of water from

Charleston Harbor of less than Class SA quality on flooding tide

afforded the greatest opportunity for poorer water quality con-

ditions to be localized in the upper-middle portion of the Stono

River.

A trend analysis of the past eleven years of monitoring data

from the Stono River showed general improvements in water

quality. Dissolved oxygen concentrations either improved or

remained the same over the time period. Bacterial densities also

improved as decreased levels were observed at all stations except

Wappoo Creek and the Stono River at SC 700 (Haybank Highway).

Further analysis of the data demonstrated this was a near-field

effect due primarily to the input from Wappoo Creek.

The results of the compliance sampling inspection at the

three wastewater treatment facilities were found to be in overall

satisfactory condition. There were no discernible impacts on the

Stono River due to the presence of the treatment facility dis-

charges during this assessment period.

The major and overwhelming driving force of water quality in

the upper-middle portion of the Stono River was the input of

water from Charleston Harbor via Elliott Cut and the underlying

natural hydrological regime of the Stono River. The diminished

dilution capacity in the upper portion of the river along with

apparent poor flushing combined to control the water quality

characteristics in the upper river.
!
Conclusions

The quality of water in the middle-to-upper portion of the Stono

River did not meet Class SA quality standards during the assess-

ment period for either dissolved oxygen or total coliform

bacteria. The failure to meet the Class SA standard for dis-

solved oxygen was clearly due to prevailing natural, ambient

conditions in the river and the strongly-controlling underlying

hydrological regime. The failure to meet the Class SA standard

for total coliform bacteria was due primarily to the input of

poorer quality water from the Charleston Harbor/Ashley River

system to the Stono River via Elliott Cut and Jappoo Creek,. The

lower salinity of the water from the Harbor system was an exacer-

bating factor in the higher densities of bacteria observed in the

Stono River west of the Elliott Cut entrance. All stations in

the Stono River met the Class SB quality standard for bacteria

during the assessment period.

2. There were no contraventions of the State quality standards for

pH or temperature at any station in the assessment area.

3. Uappoo Creek exhibited the highest bacterial densities of any

station in the assessment area. Elliott Cut exhibited densities

equal to the highest observed in the Stono River. The data

obtained from Wappoo Creek indicated that residential/commercial

land-use activities in that drainage basin had resulted in these

elevated ambient bacteria densities.

4. There were no contraventions of the State or Federal standard for

bacteriological quality in shellfish tissue observed at any of

the five stations sampled. Two stations were from the portion of

the river closed, to harvesting while the other three were from

open areas.

5. Hydrological .reconnaissances demonstrated substantial dilution

capacity in the Stono River on ebbing tide, but diminished

capacity on flooding tide. The diminution of dilution capacity

concurrent with the input of poorer-quality water from the Harbor

system on flooding tide clearly controlled the localization of

less than satisfactory water quality conditions in the upper-

middle portion of the Stono River.

6. The wastewater treatment facilities included in this assessment

exhibited generally satisfactory performances.

7. Except for a minor contributing effect on the bacterial densities

localized near the St. Andrews PSD/Savage Road facility, there

was no evidence of water quality impacts in the Stono River due

to the presence of these facilities. The prinicipal source of

water quality influence in the Stono River is the Charleston

Harbor system and the overwhelming driving forces were the

natural conditions and limitations imposed by the inherent hydro-

logical characteristics of the system.

8. Analysis of the dissolved oxygen and coliform bacteria trends

over the past eleven years in the Stono River showed statis-

tically significant improvement in the oyxgen levels throughout

the river and likewise significant improvement in bacteria levels

in all areas except one. Wappoo Creek and the Stono River at SC

700 (Maybank Highway) exhibited increases in bacteria levels over

the time period. This was a near-field effect not sustained

either north or south of this immediate area in the river and was

due to apparent significant increased. loading of bacteria to the

Stono River from Wappoo Creek.

4.4. Toxic Pollutants

Toxic pollutants in South Carolina's surface waters were

assessed for this report through the evaluation of data collected

statewide at DHEC monitoring stations. Data collected quarterly

at 119 monitoring stations for metals analyses and collected

annually at 69 monitoring stations for pesticides, herbicides,

and other organics analyses were used for this assessment.

DHEC also annually collects sediment samples for toxics

analyses at 187 monitoring stations. These data are not included

in this assessment since there are no standards or criteria for

comparison.

4.4.1. Metals in Water

The methodology used for this evaluation is explained in

Section 3.4. of this report.

Table 4.4.A.

Waters Affected by Metals
Statewide
FY 1986 - FY 1987

Size Monitored Size with
Waterbody Type for Metals Elevated Metals

Rivers and streams 2,513.5 miles 180.5 miles
Lakes 354,114 acres 8,560 acres
Tidal Saltwaters 319 square miles 2 square miles

Only two metals exceeded the criteria used for comparison:

zinc and copper. Copper was elevated at only one monitoring

station which is downstream of a metal plating facility waste-

water discharge.

The elevated zinc levels are random, widespread, probably

naturally occurring, and have no apparent adverse impact on the

indigenous aquatic communities. Although reported here as

elevated, we consider these zinc concentrations to be natural

levels and not indicative of toxics problems.

Also, it is important to understand that the EPA criteria

for the protection of aquatic life are not readily applicable

to instream water quality conditions. These criteria were

developed using laboratory bioassay data; and although no better

criteria can be easily developed, these may not compare well with

measurements made in the field.

Other metals assessed but which were not in concentrations

above the assessment criteria are cadmium, lead, mercury, and

metal.

4.4.2. Organics in UJater

Pesticides, herbicides, and other organics concentrations

in surface waters were reviewed for this assessment. These para-

meters were below their analytical detection limits at most moni-

toring stations as evidenced by results in the following table.

Table 4.4.B.
Waters Affected by Organics
Statewide
FY 1986 - FY 1987

Size monitored Size with
Waterbody Type for Organics Elevated Organics

Rivers and streams 1,225 miles 0 miles
Lakes 155,324 acres 0
Tidal saltwaters 56.3 square miles 0

Organics monitored for but not detected at these monitoring

stations are:

p,p'DDT aldrin toxaphene guthion
o,p'DDT o'BHC heptachlor phosdrin
p,p'DDE a BHC heptachlorapoxide lindane
o,p'DDE dieldrin malathion trithion
p,p'DDD endrin parathion PCB's
acid extractable
organics
base neutral organics
o,p'DDD ethion diazinon volatile organics

4.4.3. Fish Kills and Fishing Bans or Advisories

During FY 1986 and FY 1987 the Department recorded 144 fish

kills statewide. rore than 50% of the kills were due to dissolved

oxygen depletion from algal blooms or increased water temperature.

Nearly 70% of the kills were in private ponds or lagoons in resi-

dential developments.

Fourteen fish kills presented in Table 4.4.C. were attributed

to toxics: 12 to pesticides or herbicides, one to an ammonia spill,

and one to chlorine from a wastewater treatment plant. Ten of the

kills by pesticides or herbicides occurred in private ponds or

lagoons. The largest fish kill, which involved more than 10,000

fish, was attributed to herbicides occurred in Lake Marion from an

intentional herbicide application for aquatic weed control.

There are no waters in South Carolina which routinely

experience fish kills or fish abnormalities due to toxics.

Table 4.4.C.
South Carolina
Fish Kills Attributed to Toxics
FY 1986 - FY 1987

Waterbody Date Number Pollutant Suspected Source

Private Pond 8-19-85 40 lindane unknown
Thicketty Creek 8-27-85 900 ammonia spill at Stouffer
Foods
Lagoon/Wood Lake Villas 9-15-85 1,000 malathion unknown
Leadenwah Creek 5-14-86 2,100 guthion unknown
Private Pond 6-18-86 undet. herbicide unknown
Lagoon/Shipyard Plant. 6-29-86 2,000 2,4-D unknown
Lagoon/Sea Pines Plant. 7-07-86 1,000 oftanol unknown
Lake Marion 7-06-86 10,000 herbicide Santee-Cooper
Weed Control
Private Pond 7-27-86 1,000 endosulfan unknown
Private Pond 8-12-86 2,000 diquat unknown
Private Pond 9-04-86 50 dursban unknown
Durbin Creek 9-15-86 75 chlorine WWTP
Lagoon 9-28-86 200 2,4-D unknown
Private Pond 3-09-37 17 herbicide unknown

The Department continues a 9 year old advisory against eating

fish taken from the Seneca River area of Lake Hartwell in Pickens

County because of unsafe levels of PCBs. In 1984 the U.S. Food and

Drug Administration recommended that the level of PCBs in fish

tissue not exceed 2.0 ppm. As a result of this action and concen-

trations of PCBs detected in fish tissue, DHEC has advised that

people not eat any fish larger than three pounds caught any where in

Lake Hartwell.

The PCB contamination in Lake Hartwell was discovered in 1975

and traced to effluent from Sangamo Electric Company in Pickens.

Sangamo discontinued using PCBs in 1977; PCB use is now banned by

EPA.

In July 1986, the Department issued a health' advisory

cautioning people not eat fish taken from Langley Pond in Aiken

County. DHEC's annual monitoring showed mercury accumulations in

fish tissue above the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's recom-

mended limit of 1.0 ppm.

The sediments in Langley Pond have been monitored by DHEC since

1979 and results indicate high levels of chromium, mercury, and

PCBs. The sediment contamination comes from large quantities of

untreated or partially treated wastewater, primarily textile, dis-

charged to Horse Creek and Langley Pond since the late 1800's.

In 1979 a new regional wastewater treatment facility, dis-

charging to the Savannah River, collected and provided proper

treatment for all wastewater discharges to Horse Creek. With the

sources of contamination removed from Langley Pond, water quality

has improved; however, the contaminated sediments remain in the pond

and fish accumulate these contaminants.

Several former dischargers to Langley Pond are under order by

the Department to conduct a study to determine sources, nature,

degree, and extent of contamination in Langley Pond sediments.

Their final report to the Department will detail a plan of cor-

rective action for Langley Pond which the former dischargers must

implement.

Figure 4.4.A. shows cards detailing these advisories. These cards have

been distributed by the Department.

Figure 4.4.A.

South Carolina
Fishing Advisorie�
FY 1986- FY 1987

ATTENTION
Fish Consumption Advisory -
Lake-Hartwell
S.C. Department of Health and
Environmental Control (SCDHEC)
ATTENTION
� All fish taken from the Seneca River arm F I S H TCNSMTIONADIOY-LNEYPD
of Lake Hartwell north of SC Highway 24
and 12 Mile Creek should be released and South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control
not eaten. � All fish taken from Langley Pond should be released and not eaten.
* All fish larger than three (3) pounds taken a The South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental
from the remainder of Lake Hartwell should Control advises that these fish not be eaten due to the presence of
be released and not eaten. elevated levels of mercury and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs).
� Fishing is not prohibited but SCDHEC ad- For Additional Information, Contact
vises that these fish not be eaten due to
visesthat thesene ofi t beleatendulevl to pSouth Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control at:
the presence of elevated levels of poly-
chlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). Swimming, Columbia Aiken
boating, and other water related activities (803) 734-5300 (803) 648-9561
are not restricted by this advisory.
For additional information,
contact SCDHEC at:
COLUMBIA GREENVILLE ANDERSON
734-5300 242-9850 225-3731

405. Public Health Concerns

Closure of Bathing Areas

South Carolina required no closures of bathing areas during FY 1986

or FY 1987 because of toxic or non-toxic pollutants.

Incidents of Waterborne Disease

South Carolina reported no incidents of waterborne disease during FY

1986 or FY 1987.

Closure of Surface Drinking Water Supplies

No public water supply in South Carolina had to close permanently

during FY 1986 or FY 1987 because of toxic or non-toxic pollutants.

100

4.6 SPECIAL AREAS OF CONCERN

There are several areas of concern that OHEC -is and will be

continuing to be involved with concerning water quality of South Carolina.

Issues such as nonpoint source and ground-water protection have been

discussed elsewhere in this report and are only noted here as special

areas. Additional areas are toxics and public perception of toxics, the

need for more representative water quality criteria, and general program

funding concerns.

Toxics and Public PerceDtion of Toxics

Actions by EPA and the states have done the public a tremendous

disservice resulting in the current fear and public perception of toxics

in the environment. The word "toxic" alone brings forth connotations of

adverse impacts to the water environs of the state and nation. Words such

as "hazardous waste", "toxic wastes",' "suspected carcinogen", etc. are

repeatedly used by regulators who are vying for congressional and public

support for programs to regulate the waste by-products of the rapidly

evolving, -ever demanding American consumer. While these programs are

needed to control the generation, storage and treatmen t of these wastes,

we the regulators have painted the blackest of pictures in search of

support. As such, it is not surprising for the backlash we now see from

the public who challenge new permits (i.e., not in my 'backyard) or

congress through new regulations. The states and EPA must do a better job

of informing the public and congress of what is being done to control

toxics in the environment while remembering the goals of the Clean Water

Act. While total elimination of waste by-products, in particular toxics,

may be a "motherhood and apple pie" stance to take; it is not possible

with today's technology, n.or is it necessary if proper controls are

instituted. The findings of this report thiat overall only <5 percent of

101

state waters were impaired by toxics is an excellent indication that

adequate controls are presently in place. New regulations, new reports,

new program efforts, etc. trying to achieve these goals, burden those

states achieving those goals already. Where the goal s have yet to be

reached, proper and more effective implementation of existing programs is

needed.

More ReDresentative Water Quality Criteria

Programs such as South Carolina's use national criteria to predict

what controls are necessary to ensure that waters are protected. What we

have observed to date is that the national levels tend to be extremely

conservative and in some cases totally unrepresentative of the degree of

control necessary. Furthermore, as there is a limited amount of such

research, criteria are not available for all compounds in questions. For

these criteria to be more representative, research at the level of a state

or at most a region of water quality similarity is necessary. As this

approac h is economically infeasible for the wide range of substances of

concern, biological testing at the discharge may be the most effective

alternative. This whole wastewater analysis on a continuous basis in turn

will ensure the goals of the Clean Water Act and lead to treatment plant

upgrades where impact is discovered. This whole waste testing approach is

currently being effectively utilized by the Department.

General Prooram Fundinci Issues

Appropriate staff support and program funding have always been

important, and until recently additions to work plans, special reports,

etc. could be accomplished by either doubling up the effort or putting off

some other effort for a short period of time. Over the last several years

the demand on the water program particularly from federal sources has

significantly increased, the 19&7 amendments to the Clean Water Act being

102

a prime example. While some additional money was provided to begin the

new tasks, this seed money came in between Section 106 federal program

cuts. This trend of program cuts plus a failure to recognize the

resultant need for a reduction in effort is of great concern. A possible

solution to this concern is the development of state Clean Water Strategy

prioritizing tasks to be accomplished. Such a step takes time to develop

which in turn delays some tasks from being completed.

New programs should take into account necessary resources to the

*states, and programs should be flexible so that states can effectively

implement the programs.

103

4.7. NONPOINT SOURCE POLLUTION ASSESSMENT

Introduction

Recent passage of Federal Law 100-4, the Clean Water Act,

requires under Section 319 that each state carry out a nonpoint source

(NPS) assessment within its borders. Findings are to be reported to

the Environmental Protection Agency by April 1, 1988. Further,

Section 319 mandates that assessment results be used to formulate a

management plan to control the NPS pollution and then to implement

that plan. The task of preparing the assessment in South Carolina was

assigned to the Bureau of Water Pollution of the Department of Health

and Environmental Control. In general terms the assessment is a list

of waters, including surface and groundwaters, that are impacted by

NPS runoff and the NPS category or source contributing to these

impacts. The surface water list and accompanying information is shown

in Table 4.7.A. and the groundwater list in Table 4.7.C.

While this assessment is a good start and a good data base from

which to work, it does not include all NPS pollution problems. As

survey methodology is better customized to determine waters impacted

by NPS pollution, the data base will continually be updated and

refined.

4.7.1. Methodology

As defined by the Association of State and Interstate Water

Pollution Control Administrators and the Environmental Protection

Agency's America's Clean Water, nonpoint sources are those sources of

pollution that are not covered by a site-specific Federal permit.

With this definition in mind, a methodology was developed to assess

waterbodies in South Carolina that are currently impacted or have the

potential of being impacted by nonpoint sources. The assessment

104

results include impacted waterbodies arranged by watershed, category

of the polluting source, water quality parameter~s) being contravened,

violations of S.C. water quality standards, and source of data.

Data from the OHEC statewide ambient water-quality monitoring

network was used as a primary data source for the assessment and as a

database upon which to build. The monitoring station network data

provides the best representation of existing water quality in South

Carolina because it is the only database that contains historical

data, has a wide coverage of parameters, and is sampled monthly. This

is the only data source designated as "monitored" on the table; all

the others are designated as "evaluated".

An NPS database was acquired by retrieving data on selected

parameters from the 543 active sampling stations in the network

between 1983 and 1988. Exceedence of EPA criteria and staff profes-

sional judgement were used to identify contraventions. These water-

bodies were analyzed in detail to determine which parameters had

numerous contraventions and which had scattered contraventions, and

were so designated- on- Table 4.7.A. -The particular water quality

parameters used as indicators of NPS pollution are: fecal coliforni

bacteria, dissolved oxygen, toxic materials such as heavy metals or

pesticides, suspended solids or sediment, nutrients (phosphorus and/or

nitrogen), pH, turbidity, biological oxygen demand, and ammonia.

Each monitoring station which had contraventions of water quality

parameters was located on the appropriate county highway map and care-

fully examined to determine if in fact, the problem resulted from NPS

pollution. In determining whether the problem is point source

related, NPS related, or a combination of the two;-consideration was

105

given to which parameters were violated and to the distance of the

stations from domestic or industrial wastewater treatment discharges.

Once a station with water quality parameter contraventions was deter-

mined to be NPS related or partially NPS related, further considera-

tion was given to the geography and land use of the area to determine

which NPS category, such as agricultural activities or urban develop-

ment, or combination of categories was the most probable cause of the

probl em.

Table M..A. was developed as a visual 'presentation of 14PS

impacted waterbodies. For an explanation of the abbreviations used,

see the "NPS Assessment Explanation" that follows the table. As

required by EPA's NPS Guidance, the data was arranged by watershed and

the standardized federal eight digit hydrologic unit code was selected

as the watershed designation. Various columns in the table include:

watershed, waterbody, county, monitoring station number, NPS category,

parameters of concern, data 'source, standards violations, and

additional comments. The "NPS Assess ment Explanation" also gives an

explanation of the data type, contained in each of the columns-of the

table.

Several additional data sources were analyzed and where appro-

priate, added to the table. Surveys were sent to -individuals

throughout the state who are knowledgeable in water quality matters,

including Department of Health and Environmental Control District

engineers, S.C. Land Resources Conservation Commission Districts,

environmental groups, water-recreation groups, local conservationists,

wildlife officers, and other interested public. The surveys were used

to solicit information about specific waterbodies with existing or

potential impacts from nonpoint sources, the effects on the water-

106

bodies, the NPS categories, and the existing and potential uses of the

waterbodies. The data accrued from the surveys were compared to the

monitored data. If the impacted waterbody reported by the survey had

already been discovered from the monitored data, an additional data

source was added as "evaluated," and where ncesssary, additional NPS

categories added. Waterbodies not already discovered from the

monitored data, were added as new entries to the table. Any data

added to the table that did not come from a monitoring station, was

designated as "evaluated".

NPS impaired waterbody data were also extracted from the South

Carolina Water Quality Assessment 1984-1985 (305(b) Report); America's

Clean Water, the State's Nonpoint Source Assessment 1985, Appendix

produced by ASIWPCA; and the National Estuarine Inventory-National

Coastal Pollution Discharge Inventory by the National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration. These waterbodies were compared to those

already listed and added where necessary along with the corresponding

data source designation.

The Department has set water quality standards for three of the

parameters listed in the assessment; dissolved oxygen, fecal coliform

bacteria, and pH. The waterbodies which had violations of one or more

of these standards were determined and the parameters violated are

denoted in a separate column of the table.

The South Carolina Land Resources Conservation Commission

(SCLRCC), under contract, provided computer modelling results

indicating high potential NPS problems in the agriculture, urban

runoff, and surface mining categories. To define them, SCLRCC used a

geographic information system (GIS) and a sediment yield model called

107

SEDCAD. Statewide estimates of sediment yield were derived by

combining four spatial data sets (I.E., watershed boundaries, land

use/land cover, soil, and hydrology) to develop inputs required by the

sediment yield model. As a result of the analysis, hydrologic units,

by watershed, were separated into six Major Land Resource Areas (MLRA)

and, upon completion of the analysis phase, were further subdivided

into four distinct "potential" sediment yield categories, less than

the weighted average, greater than the weighted average, more than

twice the weighted average, and more than three times the weighted

average.

The smallest detailed unit of area usable in the simulation

modelling is that of watershed units (subdivisions of the Federal

Hydrologic Unit Code areas). Each waterbody within each watershed

unit of concern was located on county maps. These potential NPS

impacted waters could then be compared to identified impacted waters

from the monitored data. Again, where a match was realized, the

additional data source was added to the table and where necessary, the

additional NPS category was added.

4.7.2. Results

Based on data gathered from the several sources, 276 waterbodies

were identified as probable problem areas resulting from NPS pol-

lution. The largest source of data indicating NPS impacted waters was

DHEC's surface water quality sampling network, contributing informa-

tion for 78% of these areas. Other sources of data include DHEC

Environmental Quality Control Districts (10%), interested public

(28%), S.C. Land Resources Conservation Commission computer modelling

(28%), S.C. Water Quality Assessment 1984 - 1985 (305(b) Report) (3%),

America's Clean Water, the State's Nonpoint Source Assessment 1985,

108

Appendix (6%,'), and the National Estuarine Inventory - National Coastal

Pollution Discharge Inventory (1%). The total percentage exceeds 100

because several of the problem areas were' reported by more than one

source (refer to Table 4.7.A.).

The data collected from DHEC's surface water quality sampling

network was considered to be "monitored," and all other data

"evaluated." Of the 276 probable NPS problem areas listed, 56% was

monitored data, 23% was evaluated data and 21% was a combination of

monitored and evaluated.

After analy. zing the collected data, it becomes quite evident that

the greatest NPS pollution contributors are agricultural runoff and

urban runoff, contributing 61% and 39%, respectively. Other NPS cate-

gories include construction (9%), silviculture (4%), on-site waste-

water systems (3%), mining (.4%), landfills (.4%), land disposal

(.4%,), and unknown (3%). Again, the total percentage exceeds 100

because several of the problem areas had more than one NPS category

contributing to the problem. Eleven percent of the problem areas were

also impacted by point source discharges.

Several of the NPS problem areas had contraventions of South

Carolina water quality standards. Nine percent of the waterbodies

had dissolved oxygen (DO) contraventions, 6% had pH contraventions, and

7% had fecal coliform (FC) contraventions. Of these particular problem

area waterbodies; 3% had contraventions of both DO and pH, 1% had both

DO and FC, .4% had both pH and FC, and .7% had contraventions of all

three water quality standards.

South Carolina Land Resources Conservation Commission provided us

with computer modelling results which indicates watersheds with high

potential for NPS runoff from three of the major NPS categories;

agriculture, urban, and abandoned mines (see Table 4.7.B.). Results
of the modelling indicate that 136 watersheds have high potential of
109

NPS impacts. Of these, 61% have potential for being impacted by agri-

culture, 31% by urban runoff and 29% by abandoned mines. High

priority should be given to those watersheds with potential for being

impacted by two of the sources or all three sources. Eighteen percent

of the watersheds are potentially impacted by two sources and 1% by

all three sources.

4.7.3. Groundwater Assessment

Nonpoint sources, as defined by EPA guidance, account for the

vast majority of documented sites and occurrences of ground-water

contamination in South Carolina. The most recent S.C.

Groundwater Contamination Inventory compiled by the Groundwater

Protection Division of DHEC lists approximately 390 incidents or

sources at 35 sites with about 90 percent clearly associated with some

nonpoint source, e.g., lagoons, underground tanks, land fills, spray

irrigation, septic-tank tilefields, above ground tanks, and

unpermitted discharges. These incidents/sources are listed in Table

4.7.C. along with the parameter(s) of concern and the NPS category.

About 30 percent involve leaking underground storage tanks and

associated piping for petroleum products. Leaking or leaching from

pits, ponds, and lagoons used for wastewater disposal or storage

account for 17 percent of the sources. Major spills and slow leaks

not associated with in-place petroleum tanks also comprised 17

percent, landfills (both industrial and municipal) 12 percent leachate

from spray irrigation of wastewater (both industrial and municipal) or

from septic tank tilefields 6 percent each, leakage from above ground

storage tanks (mostly petroleum) 2 percent; and leakage or leaching

from unpermitted nonpoint discharges (e.g., stored on buried drums) 2

percent. Probably a large proportion of the remaining 10 percent of

110

"unknown" or "other" sources are nonpoint in character, with the

exception of contamination clearly derived from the well itself (i.e.,

oil leak from submersible pumps, accidential drainage of petroleum

products or intentional drainage of chemical wastes down wells). A

nonpoint source example would be leachate from saline dredge spoil.

There is considerable bias in the detection and documentation of

the above sites and sources. Certain categories have received or are

receiving active and comprehensive investigations: pits, ponds, and

lagoons, underground petroleum tanks, RCRA facilities, and other

facilities with waste disposal practices permitted by DHEC. Other

sources are encountered in a much more incidental manner and are

probably very under represented. Only a few instances of

agricultural contamination are known with certainty or strongly sug-

gested, but no comprehensive surveys have been conducted.

TABLE 4.7.A

NONPOINT SOURCE ASSESSMENT
I I I I NPS li {{ DATA { MONITORED/ I STDS. I ADDITIONAL
WATERSHED I WATERBODY I COUNTY [STATION ~ICATEGORYtl PARAMETERS OF CONCERN [[ SOURCE [ EVALUATED I VIO. [ COMMENTS
..........................................................................................................................................................................
..........................................................................................................................................................................
I I I I I I FC I DO I TX I SS I NT I pH I TB I'BO I AM I I I I I
03040201 PEE DEE RIVER FLORE~CE PD-076 lO IIII ME 1
03040201 SNAKE BRANCH DARLINGTON PD-137 40 I M I
03040201 CATFISH CANAL MARLON PD-097 10,40 S I M DO I
03040201 CATFISH CANAL MARION PD-321 10,40 S I M I
03040201 BIG SWAMP FLORENCE PD-160 10 S S I M DO I
03040201 BLACK CREEK DARLINGTON PD-025 10 S N I M IALSO PT SOURCE
03040201 SNAKE BRA~CH D~RLINGTON PD-258 40 S S I M I
03040201 BLACK CREEK DARLINGTON PD-021 40 S N N IIII ME I
03040201 PRESTWOOD LA}2E DARLINGTON PD-268 40 N I M pH [
03040201 THOMPSON CREEK CHESTERFIELD I0 U U IllIV E I
03040201 LYNCHES LA[[E FLORENCE PD-O86A 10,40 N S S [[ I M DO {ALSO PT SOURCE
03040201 BIRCH CREEK WILLIAMSBURG PD-213 10 N I M
03040201 LAKE SWAMP HORNY PD-176 10 N S S I M
03040201 PEE DEE RIVER FLORENCE PD-236 10 N S S I M
03040201 LAKE ROBINSON DARLI};GTON PD-266 10 N N IIV M pH
03040201 MIDDLE SWAMP FLORE[;CE PD-230 10 S N S IIV M
03040201 JEFFRIES CREEK FLORENCE PD-256 10 - S N IIII ME DO
03040201 CROOKED CREEK MARLBORO PD-107 10,40 S N N IIV M pH
03040201 PEE DEE RIVER DARLINGTON PD-028 10 l{ S S S N I M
03040201 JEFFRIES CREEK DARLINGTON PD-255 10 IIS N N IIV M DO
03040201 PEE DEE RIVER ~ARLBORO PD-015 10 II N N I M
03040201 JEFFRIES CREEK DARLINGTON PD-255 10 IIS N N [ IIV M
03040201 PER DEE RIVER ~ARLBORO PD-012 10 IIS S S S N IIII ME
03040202 LYNCHES RIVER CHESTERFIELD PD-113 10 {1N N N IV ME
03040202 LYNCHES RIVER FLORENCE PD-281 10 II '1 N I M
03040202 TODD BRANCH LANCASTER PD-005 40 {I N N I M FC
03040202 LYNCHES RIVER KENSHAW PD-080 I 10 II S S N I M
03040202 LYNCHES RIVER FLORENCE PD-041 10 II N IIV M
03040202 LYNCHES RIVER KENSHAW PD-oog I0 II S N I M
03040202 LYNCHES LAKE FLORENCE PD-087 10 I{ N IVI ME DOpH
03040202 BIG SWAMP FLORENCE PD-169 10 II S N S I M IALSO PT SOURCE
03040202 S BR WILDCAT CREEK LANCASTER PD-1BO 10 II N N I M
03040202 LYNCHES LAKE FLORE~:CE PD-085 10,40 II S N N. S I M DO
03040202 LYNCHES CREEK LANCASTER PD:006 I0 II N S S S N I M
03040202 SPARROW SWAMP DARLInGTON PD-O?2 10 {I S N N 1,1IIIV ME DOpH
03040202 W BR WILDCAT CREEK LANCASTER PD-I?9 10 {{ N { '{N I M
03040202 LITTLE RIVER HORNY MD-162 40 {i S I S { N IIII ME
03040202 LYNCHES RIVER KENSHAW PD-066 I0 II S I I N IIII ~,E
03040204 PANTHER CREEK MARLBORO PD-306 10 II S N I I N I M
03040204 LITTLE PEE DEE RIVER DILLON PD-069 10,20 {{ } { N S 1,1IIVI ME pH

NONPOINT SOURCE ASSESSMENT
I NPS II II DATA I MONITORED/ I STDS. ADDITIONAL
WATERSHED I WATERBODY I COUNTY ISTATION IICATEGORYII PARAMETERS OF CONCERN II SOURCE I EVALUATED I VIO. I COMMENTS
I I I I P C I DO I TX I SS I NT I pH I TB I IO I AM I I
021040204 I BEAVERDAN CREEK I DILLON I PD-310 I 10 11 I N I I I N I N I IS I II I I N I DOpH I
02040204 I MAIDEN DOWN SEAMP I MARION I PD-190 I 10 11 I N I I I N I I I I II I I M I DO I
03040204 I LITTLE PEE DEE RIVER I MARION I PD-189 I 10 11 I S I S I I N i S I I IN I IIV I H I 1
03040204 1 LITTLE PEE DEE RIVER I DILLON I PD-029E I 10 11 I I I I N IN I- I I I 1,11 I HE I 1
03040204 1 LITTLE PEE DEE RIVER I MARION I PD-053 I 10 11I I IS I N IS I I IS 11 I,III,IV I HE I
03040205 I POCOTALIGO RIVER I SUMTER I PD-091 I 10,40 11 S I S I S'I I N I I I IN II I,IV I N I IALSO PT SOURCE
03040205 I BLACK MINGO CREEK I GEORGETOWN I PD-172 I 10 11 I S I S I I N I I I I II I I N I DO I
03040205 I GREEN SWAMP I SUMTER I PD-039 I 10,40 11 S I S I I I I I I I II I,IV I N I
03040205 I BLACK RIVER I LEE I P0-186 I10 11 S I S I I I N I S I I I II IIIIIV I HE I I
03040205 I PUDDING SWAMP I WILLIAMSBURG I PD-203 I 10 11 S IS I I I N I S I I I 11 I I M I I
03040205S1 ROCKY BLUFF SWAMP I SUMTER I PD-201 I 10 11 S IS I I IN IN I-. I I 1 I I N IFC,DO,pHI
03040205 I POCOTALIGO RIVER I CLARENDON I PD-115 I 10 II IN I I IN IS I I I II I I N I DO I
03040205 I SCAPE ORE SWAMP I LEE I I 10 11 I I U I U I I IU I I II III,IV I E I I
03040205 I POCOTALIGO RIVER I tSUtTER I PD-202 1 10,40 11 S I N I S I I N IS I I I N II ,IV I M IDOp IAL80 PT SOURCE
03040205 I TURKEY CREEK I SUMTER I PD-098 I 10,40 If N I S I I I N I IS IS I 1I I,IV I N IF I
03040206 1 INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY I HORRY I MD-089 I 40 11 S I I I I IS I I I II I I NI I I
03040206 I KINGSTON LAKE I HORRY I MD-107 I 40 11 N I N I I I N I S I I I II I lFCDOpHI
03040206 I INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY I IORRY I MD-127 I 40 II IN IS I I IS I I IS II I MI N
03040206 I CRABTREE CREEK I HORRY I MO-158 1 10,40 11 S I N I I IN I IS I I II I N I FCDO
03040206 1 INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY I HORRY I MD-088 I 40 11 S I N I I I I I I I II I I M I FC I
03040206 I INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY I HORRY I MD-037 I 40 11 S I NI I I IS I I I II I I N I FC I
03040206 I WACCAMAW RIVER I HORRY I MD-l11 1 10,40 11 I N I I IN IS I I I II ,1IV I H I pH I
030`40206 I INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY I HORRY I MD-085 1 40 11 S I IN I I S I I5 I IIIVI I ,E I I
03040206.1 - WACCAMAW RIVER I HORRY I MD-136 I 10,40 11 IN I I I IS I I I II LIV I N I 1
03040206 I WACCAMAW RIVER I FORRY I MD-110 1 10,40 11 I N I I IN S I I I II IIIIIVVI I IE I I
03040207 I SAMPIT RIVER I GEORGETOWN I 140,65,3011 U I I U I U I I I I I II IV I E I IALSO PT SOURCE
03040207 1 W7NYAH BAY IGEORGETOWNI I 10 11 I I I UI I I I II IVVII I E I I
03040207 I TURKEY CREEK I GEORGETOWN I ND-076N I 10 11 S I I I I I S I I I II I I N I I
03040207 I INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY I HORRY I MD-091 1 10,40 11 S I N I I I I IS I I II IIV I N I FC I
03050101 I BEAVERDAM CREEK I YORK I CW-153 I 10 If N I I I I N I I S I I II I I N I I
03050101 I LAKE WYLIE I YORK I1 65,10 11 U I I I U I I I I I II III I E I I
03050103 1 U. T. TO CATAWBA RIVERI YORK I CW-2211 40 11 NI I I I N I I I I II I I N IFC 1
03050103 I STEEL CREEK I YORK I CW-009 1 10 11 N IS I I I N I IS IS I II I I N
03050103 1 BEAR CREEK I LANCASTER I CW-151 I 10 11 S I S I I IN I IS I I II I I N
03050103 1 GRASSY RUN BRANCH I CHESTEU I CW-088 40 II N I I I IN I IS IS IS II I I N
03050103 I STEEL CREEK I YORK I CW-O11 I 10 11 N I I I I N I I S I I II I I N I I
03050103 1 FISHING CREEK I CHESTER I CW-008 10 11 I INI NI I I IN II I I N I
03050103 1 GILLS CREEK ILANCASTER I CW-047 1 40 11 N ISI I I N I IS I II I I N I I
03050103 I CATAWBA RIVER I YORK I I 65 11 U I I I I I I U I I II III I E I IALSO PT SOURCE
03050103 1 CANE CREEK ILANCASTER I CW-185 I 10 11 S I NI ISI I II I I N I I

NONPOINT SOURCE ASSESSMENT

I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~I I N PS Al Al DATA A MONITORED/ J STOS. I ADDITIONAL
WATERSHED I WATERBODY I COUNTY ASTATION IICATEGORYII PARAMETERS OF CONCERN II SOURCE I EVALUATED I VIO. I COMMENTS
I I I ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~ I II FC I DO I TX A SS A NT I pHil TB I BO I AM II I I I

03050103 I TWELVE MILE CREEK ILANCASTER ICW-0B3 I 10 IIS I$ A I I N I I I ,IV I M
03050103 B EAR CREEK ILANCASTER ICW-131 I 40 IAN AS I I IN I IM I
03050103 1 FISHING CREEK I YORK ACW-029 I 10 IIS I AS I AS I N II ,V,VI I ,� I
03050104 I WATEREE RIVER I KERSHAW, II10,30 II A IU AU A I III I E AI
I SUMTER IIH I I A I I I I I I
03050104 I LAKE WATEREE IFAIRFIELD ICW-208 1 10 I IS I I AN I IS I S lI ,VI I H ,E
03050104 ILITTLE WATEREE CREEK IFAIRFIELD ICW-040 i 10 IIN I I I AN I AS I I I I I H II
03050104 I MILL CREEK R ICHLAND AC-021 I 90 HINI I I I INI I III I I M pa
030501051 LIMESTONE MILL CREEK I CHEROKEE I B-128A 40 IN I M I
03050105 A BRUSHY CREEK IGREENiVILLE IBE-DO9 I 40 AlN I I I I I AN A I I I M
03050105 I BULLOCKS CREEK I YORK IB-159 I 10 IAN A I IS I .S I I I,IV NM
03050105 I TYCER RIVER ISPARTANigURG IB-008 I 10 I.N A I I I I IN A IN IA I,VI I NE IIALSO PT SOURCE
03050105 I MIDDLE TYGER RIVIER AGREENVILLE IB-148 I 10 IIN ' N I IN I N I N II I M
*.03050105 IHEADWATERS OF LAKE BOWEN ASPARTA[:BURG B-302 I 10 IIN I I A I IN A I I,IV I N I
~- 03050105 THICKETTY CREEK I CHEROKEE IB-133 I 10 IIN I N R I I I I,IV A M
03050105 I BROAD RIVER I CHEROKEE IB-042 I 10 IN I N I IN I N H I,III,VI MNE I
03050105'" PACOLET RIVER ISPARTANBURG IB-028 lO1 I N I N I IN I i I I I M
03050105 I PACOLET RIVER ASPARTANBURG I P-001 A 10 S1 N- I S A I}I I 8
03050105A BROAD RIVER I CHEROKEE B-044I 10 II1N A I N I IN IS AN IA I I M I
03050105 ANORTH PACOLET RIVER ISPARTAN8URG AB-D26 A 10 Al N I ISA IN I IN N II I,IV A M
03050105 A BROAD RIVER A CHEROKEE AB-043 I 10 Al N I N I IN Il[I I,IV A. NM
03050105 A LAKE WELCHEL A CHEROKEE IA10,40 IA} U A{{ I A I III A E A
03050105 A THICKETTY CREEK A CHEROKEE AB-062 I 10 IA S I S A AS I IA I,IV M I
03050105 I SPIVEY CREEK ISPARTANBURG B-lO3 l O1 IA N A I . A II I A M
03050105 A POTTER BRANCH ASPARTANBURG I8-191 I 10 IA N A I I IN i A I I I I I M
03050105 I LAWSOHS FORK CREEK ISPARTA)NBURG A{40,30,10{{I U I A IU I{{ I A A III A E I{ALSO PT SOURCE
03050106I ROSS BRANCH I YORK A B-086 I 40 {IA I A I A N I IN A I{I I A M
03050106 I DRY FORK CREEK I CHESTER IB-073 I 40 IA N A N I INI A I N I M
03050106 I LITTLE RIVER IFAIRFIELD IB-145 I 10 II N I I A AN A N I l I,IV A M
03050106 I BROAD RIVER A UNION AB-046 I 10 IA N I N A AN AS AN Al I A M I
03050106A SANDY RIVER A CHESTER A B-075 I 10 IAN A I I I N A NI I Al I I M
03050106 I JACKSON CREEK IFAIRFIELD I110,30,401A[ U A I A A I IA llIIV A E II
03050106 A SMITH BRANCH A RICHLAND I8-280 I 40 IAI I NA AN I AN IN IN I I, lM ,E AFC I
03050106A BROAD RIVER A NEWBERRY A B-047A 10 IA N I N I A A A I
03050106 A DRY FORK CREEK I CHESTER IB-074 A 40 IA N I NI I N IA IA I I N AI
03050106 I BROAD RIVER AFAIRFIELD IB-236 A 1 AlO I IN S AN A N A IN IA I I M
03050106 IBROAD RDIVERSION CANALI RICHLAND AB-080 A 40 IA N I N I IN I N A N Al I,III ME I
03050106 I WINNSBORO BRANCH AFAIRFIELD IB-123 I 40 mi. N I N A A I A IA I I M FC A
03050107 I TYGER RIVER ISPARTANBURG AB-162 I 10 I{AN I N I IN IS I { IA ,11I,1IV NE IA
030501071 SOUTH TYGER RIVER IGREENVILLE AB-317 I 10 IA N A N I N I N II I N II

NONPOINT SOURCE ASSESSMENT

I NPS II II DATA I MONITORED/ I STDS. I ADDITIONAL
WATERSHED I WATERBODY I COUNTY ISTATION IICATEGORYII PARAMETERS OF CONCERN ii SOURCE I EVALUATED I VIO. I COMMENTS

I I FC I DO I TX I SS I NT I pH I TO I BO I AN1II I I
-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~------------- -------------------
03050107 I ENOREE RIVER I SPARTANBURG I BE-018 I 10 If NI I I I I I 1 N I I I I I M I IALSO PT SOURCE
03050107 1 KELSEY CREEK ISPARTANBURG I 8-235 I 40 11 N I I I I I I I I 11 I I M I
03050107 I ENOREE RIVER I NEWBERRY I B-045 I 10 11 N I IN I N I N I I N I I N 11 I I m II
03050107 I SOUTH TYGER RIVER I SPARTANBURG I B-263 1 40 11 N I I . I IN I I I I II I I 1 I IALSO PT SOURCE
03050107 IU.T. TO FAIRFOREST CREEK I SPARTANBURG 1 8-242 I 40 II N I I .1 IN I I N I I II I I m I 1
03050107 1 FAIRFOREST CREEK I SPARTANBURG I 8-020 I 40 11 N I I I N I I I I ii I I 1 I FC I
03050107 1 MITCHELL CREEK I UNION I 8-199 I 10 11 N I I I I N I I N I I II I I 1 I I
03050108 I GILDER CREEK I GREENVILLE I BE-040 I 40 11 N I I I IS I IS I I II I I M I 1
03050108 I ENOREE RIVER I SPARTANBURG I B-037 I 10 11 N I I I IN I I N I I 1I 1,111 I ME I IALSO PT SOURCE
03050108 1 HILL CREEK I SPARTANBURG I B-038 I 10 11 N IN I I IN I I I N I II I M I I
03050108 I ENOREE RIVER I SPARTANBURG I BE-024 I1 10 11 N I I I IN I 1 I I I I I K I IALSO PT SOURCE
03050108 I ENOREE RIVER I SPARTANEURG I 8-041 I 10 II N I I N I IN I I N I 1 N II I,1 HI E I IALSO PT SOURCE
03050108 1 DURBIN CREEK I GREENVILLE I 8-097 I 10 1114 I I I IN I IN I I II I I 1 I I
03050108 I BRUSHY CREEK I GREENVILLE I BE-035 I 40 11 N I I I I S I I S I I II I I 1 I
03050108 1 ENORRE RIVER I GREENVILLE I BE-015 I 10 II N I I I IN I I N I I II I I M I IALSO PT SOURCE
03050108 1 HORSE PEN CREEK I GREENVILLE I BE-020 I 10 11 N I I IN I I I I II I m I IALSO PT SOURCE
03050108 I ROCKY CREEK I GREENVILLE I BE-007 I 40 114 I I I I N I IN I N I II I I 14 I I
03050109 1 SALUDA RIVER I GREENVILLE I S-007 I 40 11 N I IS I I I I N I IN II 1,11,111 I ME I I
03050109 1 BRUSHY CREEK I ANDERSON I S-084 I 10 11 I I I IN I IN I I II I I M I I
03050109 I NORTH CREEK I LAURENS I S-135.I 10 11 S IN I I IN IS I IN I II I I M I I
03050109 I U.T. TO ENOREE RIVER I GREENVILLE I BE-001 1 40 11 NI I N I I I I 1 I IN It I I m I
03050109 I EASTcIDE CREEK I GREENVILLE I I 30,40 .11 I I IU I I I U I I II III I E I I
03050109 I LORICK BRANCH I LEXINGTON I 5-151 I 10,40 11 N IN I I IN I I N I N II I,ly I M I
03050109 I BUSH RIVER I NEVBERRY I S-042 I 10 11 NI I S I IN I I N I IN II II1IIV I E I IALSO PT SOURCE
03050109 1 SALUDA RIVER I PICKENS I S-250 I 40 11 N I l I I I I I I N II I I N I I
03050109 I SALUDA RIVER I LAURENS I S-125 I 10 11I I N I IN I I N I IN II IIIIVi I ME I
03050109 1 LITTLE RIVER I LAURENS I 5-034 1 40 11 N I I N I IN I I S I IN II I,V I N.E I I
03050109 I RABON CREEK I LAUPENS I S-096 I 10 1114 I I I IS I I N I I II I,IV I 1 I I
03050109 1 SCOTT CREEK I NEWBERRY I S-044 I 40 11 N I I IN I IN I I II I I 14 FC C
03050109 1 GEORGE'S CREEK I PICKENS I S-063 I 10 11 N I I I IN I I N I I II I,IV I 1 I I
03050109 I REEDY RIVER I GREENVILLE I S-013 1 40 11 N I I I IN I I N I IN ii IIIVI I M,E I
03050109 I CLOUDS CREEK I SALUDA I I 10 11 I I I U I I I U I I II III,IV I E I IALSO PT SOURCE
03050109 i MINE CREEK I SALUDA I 1I10,20 11 I I I U I I I U I I II III,IV I E I I
03050109 1 CAMPING CREEK I INEWERRY I 5-290 10 11 IN I N I I1 I I N I N IN II I,lV I N I I
0305010991 ROCKY RIVER I ANDESON OISV-031 I 40 11 8I I14 I I 1I I II11 I I 1 I I
03050:09 I LITTLE RIVER I NEWBERRY I 8-099 1 10 If N I I I IN I I N I I II I,IV I N I I
03050109 I SALUDA RIVER I LEXINGTON I S-149 I 10,40 11 N I I I I N I I I I II I,1II,IV I M,E I JALSO PT SOURCE
03050109 I CORONACA CREEK I GREENWOOD I I 10,40 11 U I I IU I I I U I I I 111,IV I E I IALSO PT SOURCE
03050109 1 ROCK CREEK I GREENVILLE I-091 I 10,40 11 N I I I I S I I I I II 1,111 I HIE I I
03050109 I SALUDA RIVER I GREENWOOD 1 5-186 1 10 11 S I I S I I N I I S I I N II lVI I M,E I I

NONPOiNT SOURCE ASSESSMENT
I I ~ ~ NPS ~ ~ DATA [ MONITORED/ I STDS. f ADDITIONAL
WATERSHED I WATERBODY ~ COUNTY ISTATION IICATEGORYII PARAMETERS OF CONCERN I[ SOURCE ] EVALUATED [ VlO. [ COMMENTS
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
11 FC I DO I TX I SS I NT I pH I TB I BO I AM ~1 ~ I I
03050109 I LAKE GREESWOOD GREE~:WOOD S-131 I 10 II N N N N N II 1,1IIVI ME I
03050109 tHIDDLE BRANCH HEADWATERS PICKENS )40,30,9011 O U II II E I
03050109 I KINLEY CREEK LEXINGTON 110,30,40H, II IIIIV E I
03050109 I LITTLE SALUDA RIVER SALUDA '1 10 II U II IlllV E I
03050109 I BUSH RIVER NEWBERRY 8-102 I 10 II N N Ii IIV M IALSO PT SOURCE
03050109 )LAKE HURRAY HEAD WATERS NEWBERRY S-223 I 10 II S N S S S S II IIIIIVVI ME
03050110 FOREST LAKE RICHLAND C-068 40 {IS S N l[ I M
03050110 GILLS CREEK RICHLAND C-001 40 {IN N l{ IolIIoVI ME
03050110 RAWLS CREEK LEXINGTON S-287 40 IIN N II IIII ME
03050110 SAVANNAH BRA~CH LEXINGTON C-061 40 }lS N {I I M
03050110 LAKE INSPIRATION CALHOUN C-058 40 ~{S S S N l{ I M
03050110 RED BANK CREEK LEXINGTON C-067 I0 I S S }l IIII ME
03050110 )CONGAREE R AT CONFLUENCE RICHLAND ICSB-OO1Lo 10,40 { N S S H {I IIIIIV ME
OF BROAD R AND SALUDA R ICSB-OO1R I {~
� 03050111 TAW CAW CREEK CLARENDON ST-018 40 I N S S l{ I 1- M FCDO
03050111 LAKE MARION CLAREIIDON ST-D24 10,60 I S S N II IolIIlloVI ME
' 03050112 SANTEE RIVER BERKELEY ST-001 10 I S N S S N If IVII ME
03050201 GOOSE CREEK BERKELEY MD-114 40 I $ N S N N II IVI ME DO
03050201 CROWDERS CREEk YORK CW-023 i0 I N S N N S II I M FC IALSO PT SOURCE
03050201 COOPER RIVER BERKELEY 10,90 I I U 11 IllIV E
03050201 SHEM CREEK CHARLESTON MD-OI 40 I S S S S II IV ME
03050201 WAgDO RIVER CHARLESTON 40,30 I U O U II II E
03050201 U.T. TO COOTEE CREEK CHARLESTON MD-199 90 I N S N NII I M DOpH
03050Z01 FOSTER CREEK CHARLESTON 140,65,631 U U U II II E
03050201 LAKE MOULTRIB BERKELEY I 90 I U II III E
03050202 INLET CREEK CHARLESTON I 40,30 I U II II E
03050202 KIAWAH RIVER CHARLESTON I 40,10 { U U U II II E
03050202 ASHLEY RIVER CHARLESTON MD-049 I 40 I S S S S S $ II I M IALSO PT SOURCE
03050202 FOLLY RIVER CHARLESTON 440,10,65l, I U U U I' II II E I
03050202 ASHLEY RIVER CHARLESTON MD-052 40 I S S S S [I I M IALSO PT SOURCE
03050202 JEREMY CREEK CHARLESTON 40,65 { U U {{ II E
03050202 CONCH CREEK CHARLESTON 40,30 I U II II E I
03050202 ASHLEY RIVER CHARLESTON MD-034 40 I S S NII III ME IALSO PT SOURCE
03050202 CHARLESTON HARBOR CHARLESTON MD-165 40 I S S S IIIIIIIIVII HE ALSO PT SOURCE
03050202 STONO RIVER CHARLESTON ~D-026 40 {S S S S S II IIIIII HE ALSO PT SOURCE
03050202 SWINTON CREEK CHARL��TON 40,30 ) U II II E
03050202 WASSAMA�SAW SWAMP BERKELEY ICSTL-063 90 I'S N N S H l} IV ME DO
03050202 JA~ES ISLAND CREEK CHARLESTON I MD-122 40 I N S {I I M
03050202 HAHLIN CREEK CRAdLESTON ) 40,30 { U {{ II E
03050202 ELLIOT CUT CHARLESTON I MD-025 40 I S S S II I M )ALSO PT SOURCE

NONPOINT SOURCE ASSESSMENT
I I i PS II II DATA I MONITORED/ I STDS. I ADDITIONAL
WATERSHED I WATERBODY I COUNTY ISTATION IICATEGORYII PARAMETERS OF CONCERN 11 SOURCE I EVALUATED I VIO. I COMMENTS
I I IIDFCDO ITX I SS I NT I pH I TBRI BO I AM II
03050202 1 RAELIN SOUND I CHARLESTON I I 40,30 ii U I I I I I I I I 11 II I E I 1
03050202 I COPAHEE SOUND I CHARLESTON I 1 40,30 11 U I I I I I I I II II I E I I
03050203 I N FORK EDISTO RIVER I ORANGEBURG I E-092 I 10 II N I I S I I S I N I I I N II IIV I N I I
03050203 I N FORK EDISTO RIVER I AIKEN I E-091 I 10 11 N I I S I I N I I I I N II I,IV,VI I H ,E I FC I
03050203 1 N FORK EDISTO RIVER I ORANGEBURG I E-007 I 10,40 11IN I I I I N I N I I I N II IIIIV I NHI I
03050203 1 N FORK EDISTO RIVER I ORANGEBURG I E-099 I 10 11 N I IS I I N I N I I I N IIIV I N I H I
03050203 1 BULL SWAMP CREEK I LEXINGTON I E-034 I 10 II N IN I I I N I N I I I IIIV I M DOpH
03050204 1 FIRST BRANCH I EDGEFIELD I E-001 I 40 11 I I I I I S I I I 1I I I N I FC,pH I LIMITED DATA
03050204 1 GOODLAND CREEK I ORANGEBURG I E-036 I 10 11 N I I I IN I S I I I II T,IV I N I I
03050204 1 S FORK EDISTO RIVER I AIKEN I E-090 I 10 11 N I I I I I S I IN II LIV I N II
03050205 1 FICKLING CREEK I CHARLESTON I I 10 11 I U I U I I I I I I II II E
03050205 1 CHURCH CREEK I CHARLESTON I 110,65 11 U I I I I I I I I II IIIV I E I
03050205 I FISHING CREEK I CHARLESTON I 65 11 U I U I I I I I I I II II I E I I
03050205 I EDISTO RIVER I ORANGEBURG I E-013 I 10 11 S I I I I N I S I I I II I I N I I
= 03050205 1 EDISTO RIVER I DORCHESTER I E-015 I 10 II S I I I IN I I I I II I,IV I II
03050205 1 LEADENWAH CREEK I CHARLESTON I I 10 11 IU IU I I I I I I Ii I E I I
03050205 I DAWHOO RIVER I CHARLESTON I MD-120 I 10 11 S IS I S I I S I I S I IN II I I N I I
03050205 I EDISTO RIVER I DORCHESTER I E-014 I 10 ii S I S I I I N I I I I II I,III,IV,VI I N.E I I
03050205 I BONICKLET CREEK I CHARLESTON I MD-195 I 40 11 S IS IS I I S I I I I N II I I x I FCDO I
03050206 I PROVIDENCE SWAXP I ORANGEBURG I E-051 I 10 11 N IN I N I I N 1 I S I IN II I I M I DO 1
03050206 1 FOUR HOLE SWAMP I ORANGEBURG i E-059 I 10 II N I IS I I N I I I I II 1,111 I NI I I
030502.07 1 LITTLE SALKEHATCHIE R I COLLETON I 1 10,20 11 I I I U I I I I I II 1IlY I E I 1
03050207 I SALKEHATCHIE RIVER I COLLETON ICSTL-006 I 10 11 S I I I I N I I I IN II I I M I
03050207 1 SALKEHATCHIE RIVER I BARNWELL ICSTL-028 1 10 11 5 I I I I N I I I I N II I I N I I
03050208 I COOSAWHATCHIE RIVER I JASPER ICSTL-107 I 10 11 S I IS I I S I $ I I IN II I I N I I
03050208 i ASHEPOO RIVER I COLLETON I I 10,40 11 I I U IlU I I I I I II III,IY I E I I
03050208 1 LUCY POINT CREEK I BEAUFORT I I 10 II U I I I I I I I Il III I E I I
03050208 I NEW RIVER I BEAUFORT I MD-118 I 10 It S I S I I I IS I I IN II I,IV,V I M,E I I
03050208 1 IRELAND CREEK I COLLETON ICSTL-044 I 10 11 S I S I I I N I N I I I II I,III,IV I NE I DO,pH I
03050208 1 BEAUFORT RIVER I BEAUFORT I MD-001 I 40 11 IN I I I I I I I II I I M I I
03050208 I LK WARREN ON BLACK CK I HAMPTON I I 10 11 I I I U I I I I I II. III,IV I E I I
03050208 I COOSAWUATCHIE RIVER I HAMPTON ICSTL-109 I 10 11 S I S I N I I N I S I I IS II I I N I I
03050208 1 BROAD RIVER I BEAUFORT I I 90 I I I I U I I I I II VII I E I I
03050208 1 ST HELENA SOUND I BEAUFORT I I 90 11 I I I I U I I I I II VII I E I 1
03050208 I COLLETON RIVER I BEAUFORT I I 10 If U I I I I I I I I II III E I I
03050208 I BEAUFORT RIVER I BEAUFORT I MD-002 I 40 11 IN I I I S I I I I II I I II
03050208 1 BEAUFORT RIVER I BEAUFORT I MD-004 1 40 II IN I I I I I I i II I I m I ALSO PT SOURCE
03050208 I OKATIE RIVER I BEAUFORT I I 10 11 U I I I I I I I I II III I E I
03050208 I POCOTALIGO RIVER I BEAUFORT I MD-007 I 10 11 I S I S I I N I I 1 I N II IdV I ,E I
03060101 I LAKE HARTWELL I OC0,EE I 1 30,40 11 I I I U I I I I I II IlI,1V I E I ALSO PT SOURCE

NONPOINT SOURCE ASSESSMENT
I NPS II II DATA I MONITORED/ I STDS. I ADDITIONAL
WATERSHED I WATERBODY I COUNTY ISTATION IICATEGORYII PARAMETERS OF CONCERN II SOURCE I EVALUATED I VIO. I COMMENTS
I~~~~~~IIE~~~~~~~--I------I--Ill--St--E.;::
I[I I II FC I DO I TX I SS I NT I pH I TB I BO I AM I I I
03060101 1 LAKE KEOEE I OCONEE I SV-312 I 10 11 I I I I I I I I N Ii IIV I I
03060101 1 SIX AND TWENTY CREEK I ANDERSON I SV-181 I 10 11 N I I I IN I I I I II I,IV I M I
03060101 1 TWELVE MILE CREEK I PICKENS I SV-282 I 10 11 N I I I IN I I S I I I I M
03060101 1 THOMPSON RIVER I OCONEE 140,10,3011 i U I I I U I II III I E I
03060101 1 LITTLE RIVER I OCONEE I SV-203 110,20,3011 N I U I I U I N II I I I , IIII,IV I NE I
03060101 1 WHITEWATER RIVER I OCONEE 140,10,3011 { U I I I U II IV I E I
03060101 I LAKE KEOWEE I OCONEE I SV-311 I 10 II I I II I,III,IV I H,E I
03060101 1 TWELVE MILE CREEK I PICKENS I SV-015 I 10 11 N I I I I I I S I I II I,IIIIV I H,E I I
030601011 CONEROSS CREEK I OCONEE 1 20,30 11 I I I U I I I U II III I E I I
030601011 BROADWAY CREEK I ANDERSON ISV-136 10 11 S I I IS I IN I I 11 I I i
03060102 1 BATTLE CREEK I OCONEE I 20,30 II I I I U I I I U I II 11III,IV E I
03060102 1 OPOSSUM CREEK I OCONEE I 20,30 II I I I U I I I U II III,IV I E I
03060102 1 CHA4GA RIVER I OCONEE I 1 20,30 I I I I U I I I U I I 11 III I E I I
03060102 1 BRASSTOWN CREEK I OCONEE 1 20,30 11 I I I U I I I II,IV I E I I
o 03060102 I CHATOOGA RIVER I OCONEE 1 20,30 11 I I I U I I I U I I II III,IV I E I
03060103 I CLARKS HILL RES I McCORMICK I I 10 II I I I U I I I U I I II III II E I
03060103 1 LONG CANE CREEK I McCORMICK I SV-318 I 10 11 I I S I I N I I S II N II 1,111 I NE I
03060103 1 LAKE SECCESSION I ABEEVILLE I SV-121 I 10 11 SI I S sI S I I 1, II I ME
03060103 1 LAKE SECCESSION I ABBEVILLE I SV-121 I 10 I I IS I S I S I I IS II I I I I
03060103 1 LAKE LEGION I ABBEVILLE I 1 10,40 I I I U I I I I I III I E I I
03060103 1 LEGION LAKI:E I ABBEVILLE I 110,40 11 I I I U I I I I I III I E I I
03060103 I LAKE SECCESSION I ABBEVILLE I SV-122 I 10 II I S I I I S II I I M I
03060103 1 LITTLE RIVER I McCORMICK I I 10 11 I I I U I I I U I I III I E I
03060103 1 LAKE RUSSELL I ABBEVILLE I 110,40 1.1 I I IU I I I I I III I E I I
03060106 1 HORSE CREEK I AIKEN I SV-250 40 iIS I S I S IS I I N II I I M I
03068106 1 BRIDGE CREEK I AIKEN I SV-070 I 10 11 I I S I IS I S I I IN II I MI
03060106 1 SAND RIVER I AIKEN I SV-069 40 11 S I I I I S IS I I IN II I I M I
030601061 HORSE CREEK POND I AIKEN ISV-096 40 I I I I N I S I IS I I I
03060106 1 LITTLE HORSE CREEK I AIKEN I SV-317 I 10. 11 I I I I N IS II I I M I
03060106 1 HORSE CREEK I AIKEN I SV-O71 I 40 11 S I I S I S I S I I IN I I I M I
03060106 I LITTLE HORSE CREEK I AIKEN I SV-073 I 10 II S I I I I N I S I , I I 1,11 I E I
03060106 1 LOWER THREE RUNS CREEK I ALLENDALE I SV-175 I 10 I I I I N I I I IS I I I M I
03060106 1 SUDLOW LAKE I AIKEN 1 30,50 11 I I I U I I I U I I I E II
03060106 1 HORSE CREEK I AIKEN I SV-072 1 40 11S I I I I N IS I I IS II I M I I
03060107 1 TURKEY CREEK I McCORmICK I I 10 11 I I I U I I I U I I II III E
03060107 I HARD LABOR CREEK I McCORMICK I I 10 11 I I I U I I I U I I II III,IV E
03060107 1 CUFFEYTOWN CREEK I McCORMICK I I 10 1 I I U I U I I II III,IV I E I
03060107 I STEVENS CREEK I McCORMICK I I 10 II I I I U I I I U I I II 111,IV E

Legend for Table 4.7.A.

Column i - Watershed

The standard federal eight digit hydrologic unit was selected as the
watershed designation for the assessment.

Column 2 - Waterbody

The name of the body of water, i.e., stream, river, lake, wetland,
etc. that evidences real or potential adverse impacts due to NPS
contributions.

Column 3 - County

The South Carolina county or counties in which the problem waterbody
lies. Along with the watershed identifier, it defines the location
of the waterbody.

Column 4 - Station #

The DHEC surface water quality sampling station identification number.

Column 5 - NPS Category

NPS Category represents the source of pollution affecting the problem
waterbody. Category number designations are taken directly from EPA
guidance:

10 - Agriculture
20 - Silviculture
30 - Construction
40 - Urban Runoff
51 - Surface Mining
65 - On-site Wastewater Systems
70 - Hydrologic/Habitatal Modification
80 - Other
90 - Source Unknown

Column 6 - Parameters of Concern

The specific water quality indicators of NPS pollution. The water-
bodies listed have exhibited exceedences of specific guidelines or
standards of one or more of the parameters shown:

FC - Fecal Coliform Bacteria
DO - Dissolved Oxygen
TX - Toxic materials such as heavy metals or pesticides
SS - Suspended Solids or Sediment
NT - Nutrients (phosphorus and/or nitrogen)
pH
TB - Turbidity
BO - Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD5)
AM - Ammonia

119

An S in a parameter column indicates scattered exceedences
of a particular parameter, N indicates numerous exceedences, and
U indicates undetermined.

Column 7 - Data Source

Several sources were utilized to identify NPS problem waterbodies for
purposes of the assessment:

I - DHEC's surface water quality sampling network of 543 stations.
This data was retrieved from the STORET network. It represents
the largest data source in the assessment and is the only one
designated as a "monitored" data source.

II - Problem locations supplied by DHEC District Engineers.

III - Problem locations supplied by the interested public including
environmental groups and water based recreation groups, local
conservationists, and wildlife officers.

IV - Computer modelling results by S.C. Land Resources Conservation
Commission indicate high potential for NPS problems in the
agriculture, urban runoff, or surface mining categories.

V - S.C. Water Quality Assessment 1984-1985 (305(b) Report).

.Vl - Data contained in America's Cledn Water, the State's Nonpoint
Source Assessment 1935 Appendix produced by ASIPCA.

VII. - Data contained in the National Estuarine Inventory - National
Coastal Pollution Discharge Inventory by the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration.

Column 8 - Monitored/Evaluated

This denotes whether a problem waterbody was selected based on
monitored or evaluated data.

Column 9 - Standards Violations

The State of South Carolina has set water quality standards for three
of the parameters listed in the assessment; dissolved oxygen, fecal
coliform bacteria, and pH. This column denotes at which waterbody
one or more of these parameters had standards violations.

Column 10 - Additional Comments

Self-explanatory.

120.

TABLE 4.7.B

WATERSHEDS WITH HIGH POTENTIAL FOR NPS RUNOFF

I NPS II NPS II NPS
WATERSHED ICATEGORYII WATERSHED ICATEGORYII WATERSHED ICATEGORY
�=============I======= II==============I========II
03040201 80 I 10 1103050105 140 I 40,51 1103050204 40 1 10,51
03040201 33 1 10 1103050106 20 I 10 1103050204 70 10
03040201 19 1 10 1103050106 90 1 10 1103050204 50 10
03040201 41 1 10 1103050107 10 I 51 1103050205 20 1 10
03040201 72 5I 1 1103050107 20 1 40 1103050205 40 I 10
03040201 70 1 51 1103050107 30 1 10,40 1103050205 50 I 10
03040201 110 I 5i 1103050107 40 110,40 511103050205 70 40
03040201 120 10 1103050107 50 i 40,51 1103050206 10 1 40
03040201 150 1 51 1103050107 60 1 40,51 1103050206 20 1 40
03040201 140 1 10 1103050108 10 1 51 1103050206 30 1 40
03040201 160 1 10 1103050108 30 1 10 1103050207 10 I 51
03040202 50 I 10 1103050108 43 i 10 .1103050207 30 1 51
030.40202 60 1 51 1103050109 10 I 10,40 1103050207 50 1 10,51
03040202 90 51 1103050109 20 1 40 1103050207 .40 1 51
03040202 97 l 10 1103050109 40 1 40,51 1103050207 60 1 51
03040202 110 I 10 1103050109 50- 40 1103050207 80 1 51
03040202 140 1 10 1103050109 70 1 10 1103050207 90 I 10
03040202 150 I 10 1103050109 90 1 10 1103050208 50 1 51
03040204 50 I 10 1103050109 110 I 10,40 1103050208 80 1 10
03040204 88 1 10 1103050109 120 I 10 1103050208 120 1 10
03040205 30 1 51 1103050109 130 1 40,51 1103050208 130 1 40
03040205 40 1 - 10 1103050109 170 1 51 1103050208 90 I 51
03040205 20 1 10 - 1103050109 200 1 10 1103050208 100 1 51
03040205 120 1 10 1103050111 29 1 10 1103060101 50 1 40
03040205 130 I 10 1103050111 30 1 10 1103060101 80 1 40
03040205 140 51 1103050111 40 1 - 10 103060101 40 1 40
03040205 170 1 10 1103050111 50 1 10 1103060101 30 1 10,40
030402D6 100 I 10 1103050112 10 I 10 1103060101 60 1 40
03040206 110 I 10 103050112 20 1 10 1103060101 90 1 40
03040206 120 1 10,40 1103050112 40 I' 10 1103060101 100 1 40
03040206 29 1 10 1103050112 50 I 10 1103060102 30 1 40
03040207 50 1 10 1103050112 60 1 10 1103060102 60 1 40
03050104 60 1 10 1103050201 20 10 1103060102 130 1 40
03050104 70 1 10 1103050201 30 1 10 1103060103 20 1 10
03050104 80 1 40 1103050202 20 i 10 1103060103 30 I 40,51
03050104 100 I 10 1103050202 40 1 10 1103060103 80 1 40
03050105 155 1 40,51 1103050202 50 1 40,51 1103060103 70 1 40
03050105 160 1 40 1103050202 70 1 40,51 1103060106 30 1 10
03050105 180 1 40 103050203 30 1 10 1103060106 60 1.10,51
03050105 58 1 10,40 1103050203 40 110,40,511103060106 100 1 10
03050105 94 1 10 1103050203 50 1 40,51 1103060106 110 I 10
03050105 110 1 10,40 1103050203 60 1 10 1103060106 130 1 10
03050105 130 1 40,51 1103050203 70 1 10 1103060106 140 1 10
03050105 109 I 10 1103050204 20 1 10,51 1103060107 40 1 10
03050105 122 1 10 1103050204 10 1 51 11
03050105 142 1 10,51 1103050204 30 1 10,51 11

121

TABLE 4.7.C

GROUNDWATER NPS ASSESSMENT

SITE COUNTY PARAMETERS OF CONCERN NPS CATEGORY

Whitlock Wool Combing ALLENDALE N03 62
Sandoz Colors and Chemicals ALLENDALE N03,METALS,VOC,OTHER 62
Palmetto Dunes Plantation BEAUFORT N03 62
Plusa Inc. BERKELEY N03 62
Carolinia Eastman CALHOUN N03 62
Wando River Terminal CHARLESTON N03 62
E.I. Dupont de Nem6ur FLORENCE N03 62
Wolverine Brass HORRY VOC 62
Kendall Company KERSHAW N03 62
Swansea Municipal Sewage Treatment LEXINGTON METALS 62
Carolina Gravure LEXINGTON METALS 62
Masonite MARION N03 62
Delta Mills Plant MARLBORO N03 62
Ashland Chemical Company RICHLAND OTHER 62
National Starch and Chemical SPARTANBURG N03 62
Hoechst Fibers SPARTANBURG METALS,VOC 62
Lyman, Town of SPARTANBURG N03 62
Campbell Soup SUMTER N03 62
Sonoco DARLINGTON OTHER 62,63,82
Sea Pines Plantation BEAUFORT N03 62,65,82
Abco SPARTANBURG VOC, METALS 62,82
International Wire Products SPARTANBURG METALS,VOC 62,82,84
Lindau Chemical Company RICHLAND VOC 62,84
Savannah River Plant LF DWP-087A AIKEN VOC 63
Savannah River Plant - Silverton Rd AIKEN VOC 63
}Horse Creek Poll. Cntrl. IWP-161 AIKEN METALS 63
Savannah River Plant - CMP Pits AIKEN METALS,VOC,P/H 63
Singer Company ANDERSON VOC 63
Ow-n-:-Cor nincl L.F IWP-)15, ANDERSON VOC 63
Barnwell Count:y LF DWP-Ol PARNWELL VOC 63
Beaufort County LF DWP-063 BEAUFORT METALS,N03 63

GROUNDWATER NPS ASSESSMENT

SITE COUNTY PARAMETERS OF CONCERN NPS CATEGORY

Charleston County LF' DWP-061, -079 CHARLESTON METALS 63
Landfill, Inc. CHESTER VOC, METALS 63
Chesterfield County LF DWP-036 CHESTERFIELD METALS 63
Chesterfield County LF DWP-u17 CHESTERFIELD METALS 63
Colleton County LF DWP-076 COLLETON METALS 63
Darlington County LF DWP-060 DARLINGTON METALS,VOC 63
Edgefield County LF DWP-04(0 EDGEFIELD N03 63
Florence County LF DWP-021 FLORENCE METALS,VOC 63
Koppers Co., Inc. FLORENCE BNA 63
Andrews Wire GEORGETOWN METALS 63
Georcletown Steel GEORGETOWN METALS,N03 63
Piedmont LF I & II DWP-009 GREENVILLE VOC 63
Simpsonville LF GREENVILLE VOC 63
Ci.ty of Greenville LF DWP-070 GREENVILLE VOC 63
'We.stern Carolina Reg. Sewer IWP-152 GREENVILLE METALS,N03 63
o Greenwood Co. LF DWP-100 GREENWOOD VOC 63
Monsanto GREENWOOD VOC 63
Helena Chemical HAMPTON P/H 63
Kershaw County LF DWPE 008 & 008A KERSHAW METALS 63
Torrington Co. LAURENS VOC 63
Cryovac Dumpsite LAURENS METALS,CHLOROFORM 63
Lexington County Landfill DWP-030 LEXINGTON VOC 63
Carolina C'hemicals LEXINGTON P/H 63
Farmers Mutual Exchange LF MARLBORO METALS, VOC 63
J.P. Stevens IWP-104 OCONEE N03 63
Sangamo Weston PICKENS PCB 63
Platt Saco Lowell PICKENS METALS 63
Chambers/Richland Co. LF DWP-126 RICHLAND VOC 63
Batchelder-Blasi us SPARTANBURG METALS 63
Sumter County LF-Cook St. SUMTER METALS 63
Shaw AFB SUMTER VOC 63

GROUNDWATER NPS ASSESSMENT

SITE COUNTY PARAMETERS OF CONCERN NPS CATEGORY

Gist Brocade Fermentation WILLIAMSBURG N03 63,82
Celanese Fibers Operations YORK VOC 63,82
Venture Chemical BEAUFORT PCB,METALS,VOC 63,82,84
Ethyl Corporation ORANGEBURG VOC 63,84
McEntire ANG Base RICHLAND VOC 63,84
Groce Laboratories SPARTANBURG VOC 63,84
Puretown Restaurant & Truck Stop ANDERSON N03 65
Folly Island CHARLESTON N03 65
Hutchinson Trailer Park FLORENCE N03 65
Columbia Orcanic Chemical KERSHAW VOC,METALS 65
Inland Container Company LEXINGTON METALS 65
F.B. Johnston, Inc. LEXINGTON VOC 65
Wood Brothers Inc. LEXINGTON OTHER 65
Becton Dickinson and Co. OCONEE METALS 65
Greenwood Mills Liner Plant ORANGEBURG VOC,N03,PHENOL 65
Fairfield Chemical Company RICHLAND VOC 65
Kings Laboratories RICHLAND VOC 65
Future Fuels RICHLAND VOC 65
Robbins and Myers, Inc. RICHLAND N03 65
Derrick private well RICHLAND PETROPROD 65
Spartan Plating and Grinding SPARTANBURG METALS 65
Cherryvale Subdivision SUMTER PETROPROD 65
Booth Farms SUMTER N03 65
Palmetto Pigeon Plant SUMTER N03 65
Kalama Specialty Chemicals BEAUFORT VOC 65,82
Greenwood Mills Edisto Plant ORANGEBURG N03,PHENOL 65,82
Savannah River Plant M-Area AIKEN VOC 82
Savannah River Plant-Old TNX Basins AIKEN METALS 82
Savannah River Plant L-Area AIKEN N03 82
Savannah River Plant F-Area AIKEN RAD 82
Savannah River Plant H-Area AIKEN RAD 82

GROUNDWATER NPS ASSESSMENT

SITE COUNTY PARAMETERS OF CONCERN NPS CATEGORY

Eliskim, Inc. ANDERSON METALS 82
Wamchem BEAUFORT METALS,VOC,N03 82
Independent Nail BEAUFORT METALS 82
Parker White Metals Co. BEAUFORT METALS 82
Mobay Chemical Corp BERKELEY VOC 82
Moore Drums CHARLESTON METALS,VOC 82
Geiger Property CHARLESTON VOC 82
General Electric CHARLESTON VOC 82
Cummins Engine CHARLESTON METALS 82
Lockheed-Georgia Company, Inc. CHARLESTON METALS,VOC 82
Mobil Chemical Company CHARLESTON N03,P/H 82
Stoller-Mii CHARLESTON METALS,N03 82
Virginia Chemicals CHESTER VOC,SALTS 82
Ti-Caro-Knit CHESTERFIELD ' 82
Balchem Corp COLLETON . METALS,VOC 82
, Asten Hill Manufacturing Co. COLLETON VOC 82
Celanese Fibers DARLINGTON VOC 82
Sweetwater community EDGEFIELD PETROPROD 82
L-Tec FLORENCE: VOC 82
Kaiser Aluminum Company FLORENCE P/H 82
General Electric Co. FLORENCE VOC, METALS 82
Floyd's Grocery GEORGETOWN PETROPROD 82
Ameracan Cyanimid GEORGETOWN Al SULFATE 82
General Battery Corporation GREENVILLE METALS 82
T' & S Brass and Bronze Works, Inc. GREENVILLE VOC,METALS 82
Steel Heddle Manufacturing GREENVILLE METALS,VOC 82
iRocy Metal Finishinig Works, Inc. GREENVILLE METALS,VOC 82
Carolina Plating Works GREENVILLE METALS, VOC 82
Ame.rican Hoechst Corp GREENVILLE METALS,VOC 82
Wes tinghouse HAMPTON PHENOLS 82
RE.ichold Chemical Company HAMPTON METALS,VOC 82

GROUNDWATER NPS ASSESSMENT

SITE COUNTY PARAMETERS OF CONCERN NPS CATEGORY

Pine Valley Estates HORRY N03 82
Garden City Shopping Center HORRY MBAS,TDS 82
Hardwicke Chemical KERSHAW METALS,VOC 82
E.I. Dupont KERSHAW METALS 82
Southern Screening & Engraving LANCASTER VOC, METALS 82
Lehigh-Lancaster Inc. LANCASTER METALS 82
Simpson private well LAURENS PETROPROD 82
Union Switch & Signal LEXINGTON METALS,VOC 82
Allied Fibers and Plastic Corp. LEXINGTON METALS, VOC, N03 82
Springdale private well LEXINGTON PETROPROD 82
Roper Industries ORANGEBURG 82
Shuron, Inc. ORANGEBURG VOC 82
Chevron/Gulf Terminal RICHLAND PETROPROD 82
Bendix/Amphenol Products RICHLAND VOC 82
Amphenol Products RICHLAND VOC 82
Townsend Textron Sawchain RICHLAND METALS,NO3 82
Inman Quarry SPARTANBURG VOC,METALS 82
Siemens Allis/ITE SPARTANBURG METALS,VOC 82
Blackman-Uhler Chemical SPARTANBURG VOC 82
International Mineral Corp. SPARTANBURG N03 82
Milliken Chemical Company SPARTANBURG VOC 82
Th'ermal Oxidation Corp. SPARTANBURG VOC 82
Sybron Chemicals Inc. SPARTANBURG 82
Southern Wood Piedmont SPARTANBURG BNA 82
Southern Coatingcs SUMTER METALS 82
CP Chemicals Inc. SUMTER METALS,VOC 82
Valchem AIKEN VOC 82,84
Perfection Hytest DARLINGTON VOC 82,84
Wellman, Inc. FLORENCE PETROPROD,VOC 82,84
LU & M Self Service FLORENCE PETROPROD 82,84
Vicellon GREENVILLE VOC 82,84

GROUNDWATER'NPS ASSESSMENT

SITE COUNTY PARAMETERS OF CONCERN NPS CATEGORY

Crown Metro, Inc. GREENVILLE VOC 82,84
Para-Chem, Inc. GREENVILLE VOC,METALS 82,84
Seaboard System Railroad AIKEN VOC 84
Defense Fuel Support Point BERKELEY PETROPROD 84
Chevron Gulf Terminal CHARLESTON PETROPROD 84
Swygert's Shipyard CHARLESTON PETROPROD 84
Texaco Terminal CHARLESTON PETROPROD 84
Broad River Brick CHEROKEE PETROPROD 84
Carolawn Industries CHESTER VOC 84
Scurry Private well EDGEFIELD PETROPROD 84
Winnsboro Petroleum Company FAIRFIELD PETROPROD 84
VC Summer Nuclear Station FAIRFIELD PETROPROD 84
Korn Industries FLORENCE PETROPOD 84
Ethox GREENVILLE PETROPROD 84
Cone Mills Union Bleachery GREENVILLE METALS 84
Colonial Pipeline Spill Site 2 GREENVILLE PETROPROD 84
Colonial Pipeline Spill Site 1 GREENVILLE PETROPROD 84
General Electric. Gas. Turbine GREENVILLE P.ETROPROD 84
Carolina Plating and Stamping GREENVILLE METALS 84
Roll Technology GREENVILLE METALS 84
Myrtle Beach AF'B HORRY PETROPROD 84
Suffolk Chemical Co. LEXINGTON VOC 84
Columbia Metropolitan Airport LEXINGTON PETROPROD 84
SC Recycling & Disposal-Dixiana LEXINGTON METALS,VOC 84
Palmetto Wood Preserving, Inc. LEXINGTON METALS 84
S.C. Fire Academy LEXINGTON VOC 84
Georgia Pacific Corp. ORANGEBURG PETROPROD 84
Palmetto Recycling RICHLAND METALS 84
SC Recycling Disposal-Bluff Rd. RICHLAND VOC 84
Cardinal Chemical Company RICHLAND VOC 84
Westinghouse Nuclear Fuel Div. RICHLAND N03, Fluoride 84

GROUNDWATER NPS ASSESSMENT

SITE COUNTY PARAMETERS OF CONCERN NPS CATEGORY

Bell South RICHLAND PETROPROD 84
Plantation, Inc. SPARTANBURG PETROPROD 84
Union Oil Co. SPARTANBURG PETROPROD 84
British Petroleum SPARTANBURG PETROPROD 84
Amerada Hess SPARTANBURG PETROPROD 84
Crown Central Petroleum SPARTANBURG PETROPROD 84
Frank Elmore Site SPARTANBURG VOC 84
Ashland Qil Co. SPARTANBURG PETROPROD 84
Shell Oil Co. SPARTANBURG PETROPROD 84
Chevron, Inc. SPARTANBURG PETROPROD 84
Exxon Company, USA SPARTANBURG PETROPROD 84
Exide Battery SUMTER METALS 84
Carolina Drums YORK *VOC 84
Leonard Chemical Co. YORK VOC,METALS 84

CONTAMINANTS ABBREVIATION 62 - Land Disposal - Wastewater
Total Dissolved Solids TDS
Surfactants MBAS 63 - Land Disposal - Landfills
Petroleum Products PETRO
Volatile Organics VOC 65 - Land Disposal - Septic Tanks
Metals METALS
Nitrates N03 82 - Waste Storage/Storage Tank Leaks
Pesticides/Herbicides P/H
PCB PCB 84 - Spills
Base,Neutral & Acid Ex. BNA
Phenols PIIENOL
Radionuclides RAD
Other OTHER

5.0. GROUND-WATER QUALITY

5.1. General Overview

The general quality of ground-water in South Carolina is

excellent based on criteria promulgated in the USEPA Primary

Drinking-Water Standards. Portions of a statewide network of

monitoring wells for ambient ground-water quality have been

recently established. Other available data sources are being

used such as public water supply systems that use ground water,

monitoring wells at sites where ground-water contamination has

been confirmed or is suspected, and private wells. Data reported

from these sources confirm the general high quality of

ground-water throughout the State.

Despite overall good conditions, there are approximately 390

instances or areas of localized ground-water contamination.

These isolated contamination sources have been diverse and

include most of the common types of sources recognized

in other states such as leaking underground petroleum storage

tanks, industrial wastewater disposal, municipal and industrial

landfills, and accidential spills and leaks.

5.2. Major Sources of Contamination

Table 5.2.A. indicates sources of localized ground-water

contamination in South Carolina.

129

Table 5.2.A.
Sources of Localized Ground-water Contamination
South Carolina

Source Identified Source Relative Priority

Septic tanks X 5

Municipal landfills X 2

On-site industrial landfills X 3
(excluding pits, lagoons, and
surface impoundments)

Other landfills X

Surface impoundments (ex- X 6
cluding oil and gas brine pits)

Oil and gas brine pits

Underground storage tanks X 1

Injection wells (include
Class V)

Abandoned hazardous waste sites X (Included in specific type
categories)
Regulated hazardous waste sites X

Salt water intrusion X

Land application/treatment X 4

Agricultural activities X

Road salting

Other (specify)

130

5.3. Location of Ground-Water Contamination

Lagoons (including industrial pits and ponds), landfills

(industrial and municipal), and underground storage tanks that

have documented association with ground-water contamination are

not restricted to any particular areas of the state, but are

more concentrated in the three major urban/industrial centers:

Greenville/Spartanburg, Columbia, and Charleston. An additional

concentration of ground-water contamination problems have been

associated with high water-table recharge areas in Beaufort

County.

5.4. Contaminating Substances

Table 5.4.A.
Substances Contaminating Localized Ground-Water
South Carolina

Organic chemicals: Metals X

Volatile X
Synthetic X Radioactive Material X

Inorganic Chemicals:

Nitrates X Pesticides X
Fluorides X
Arsenic X Other Agricultural
chemicals X
Brine/salinity X

Other SO 4-2 X Others (specify) See Below

Other types:

Microbial pathogens (bacteria or viruses), indicated by past
analyses for bacteria and suggested by past outbreaks of
gastrointestinal disorders.

Microinvertebrates, indicated in tests on very shallow wells
in sands at one coastal area.

Total organic carbon (nonvolatile, nonsynthetic)

131

State Strategies to Alleviate Ground-Water Problems

Prevention is view4ed as the key to alleviation of

ground-water contamination. Alleviation of specific instances of

ground-water contamination--either presently documented,

presently existing but not yet discovered, or else initiating in

the future--requires another set of strategies. The principal

components of both prevention and remediation strategies are

regulatory and technical in nature. The existing regulations and

the mechanisms to enforce them provide the framework for

monitoring and the criteria for defining ground-water

contamination. Ground-water quality standards in place set the

criteria upon which contamination is defined and provides the

criteria with which facilities-design performance can be planned.

Alleviation of contamination usually requires a considerably

greater effort than detection and initial measurement of contami-

nant concentration. A concerted effort is being made to

routinely base decisions on most appropriate actions concerning

contaminated ground-water on detailed geotechnical data. This

scaling by priority allows allocation of a greater effort to the

more serious problems.

Essential site-specific information that must be obtained

for each site of contamination includes the following: (1)

detailed characterization of the chemical nature of the

contaminant plume; (2) detailed knowledge of the extent of the

contaminant plume; (3) reliable prediction of the short-term and

ultimate fates of the ground-water contaminants; and (4) reliable

prediction of the performance of any recovery or treatment

132

systems. These essential types of information can be obtained

only by detailed hydrogeologic investigations.

Facilities that handle significantly hazardous riaterials

currently are required to have a minimal ground-water monitoring

program including wells, procedures, and schedules. This is done

to detect existing ground-water contaminants or detect the new

entry of ground-water contaminants. Other facilities that are

required to have waste disposal permits, on a case-by-case basis,

as appropriate, are required to conduct ground-water monitoring.

New or replacement underground tanks for petroleum products also

require underground monitoring as .do existing tanks that fail

leak-detection tests or show significant inventory losses. Some

potential sources of contaminants do not fall within the above

groups, for example accidential leaks or spills from activities

that no longer take place and illegal dumping.

133

6.0. WATER POLLUTION CONTROL PROGRAM

6.1. Point Source Control Program

6.1.1. Municipal Facilities

DHEC has issued discharge permits under the National Pollutant

Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program to all domestic waste-

water treatment works discharging to surface waters in South Carolina,

whether publicly or privately owned.. Permit effluent limits were

derived using computerized water quality models and EPA effluent

guidelines. Permit conditions insure that effluents are treated

sufficiently so as to protect in-stream water uses and maintain speci-

fied numeric in-stream standards. Domestic wastewater treatment works

owners are required to provide best available technology (BAT) or

treatment to meet water quality limits when contructing or upgrading

their treatment plant in order to meet NPDES permit limits'.

6.1.1.1. Construction Grants Program

EPA (Sec. 201) grants for construction of wastewater treatment

works were awarded to publicly owned agencies (municipalities,

counties, special purpose districts, etc.) based on order in the DHEC

annual project priority list. The priority list ranks treatment works

needs based on documented adverse impacts on water quality. Projects

are awarded construction grants each year to the extent that funding

is available with those projects appearing highest on the list being

funded first. The system for determining priorities is described in

the SCDHEC Project Priority Rating System for Municipal Construction

Grants. Sufficient money is not available to fund all projects on the

priority list.

Waterbodies expected to have shown improvements in water quality

during fiscal years 1936 and 1937 as a result of construction grant

134

money spent would be those where treatment works were completed and

put into operation during this time period. Table 6.1.A. lists those

projects, the waterbody affected, and the eligible costs which are an

estimation of the construction and engineering costs associated with

the project. A total of $47,344,207 was spent for 17 projects com-

pleted during FY 86 and $36,183,810 was spent for 18 projects com-

pleted during FY 87.

Table 6.1.A.

Treatment Works Receiving Construction Grants and
Became Operational in FY 1986 and 1987

Owner Name Sub-basin Receiving Water Eligible Cost

FY 1986

LeawoQd/Sumter 031714 Pine Acre Creek $ 55,753
GSWSA 030716 Waccamaw River 9,143,100
Mt. Pleasant 030814 ICWW 5,413,757
Dorchester 030818 Coosaw Creek 4,839,231
BCWSA/Central 030820 Cooper River 1,599,683
East Richland 030824 Congaree River 5,303,379
Columbia 030824 Congaree River 7,231,748
Columbia 030824 Congaree River 1,862,559
Lancaster 030834 Bear Creek 277,829
Saluda 030840 Little Saluda River 93,731
WCRSA/Mauldin Rd. 030846 Reedy River 2,079,341
Ware Shoals 030847 Saluda River 2,174,013
Woodruff 030862 Dildine Creek 1,538,873
St. George 030908 Polk Swamp 1,874,254
Yemassee 030922 Combahee River 112,916
Allendale 031304 Savannah River 1,370,179
Greenwood 031306 Hard Labor Creek 2,373,861
$47,344,207

FY 87

Georgetown 030702 Whites Ck/Sampit R. $ 3,039,777
Little River 030715 ICWN 2,565,817
N. Myrtle Beach 030715 ICWW 6,628,481
Darlington 030725 Swift Creek 1,738,584
Hartsville 030725 Black Creek 1,959,567
St. Matthews 030804 Antley Spring Ck 473,535
BCWSA/Oranto 030810 Goose Creek Res. 124,116
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Continued on next page.

135

Table 6.1.A. (continued)

Owner Name Sub-basin Receiving Water Eligible Cost

St. Andrews 030818 Ashley River $ 1,398,701
Kershaw County 030828 Wateree River 1,889,971
Greenwood/Metro 030842 Wilson Creek 4,487,512
Greenwood/Magnolia P1. 039842 Wilson Creek 86,741
Easley 030847 Middle Branch 5,332,206
Easley 030847 Georges Creek
031312 Golden Creek 1,723,690
Richland County 030850 Crane Creek 702,190
ECWSA/Johnston 030913 S. Fork Edisto 1,155,909
Aiken/North Line 030918 Shaw Creek 286,096
Aiken/Northeast Line 030918 Shaw Creek 424,161
Denmark 030924 Little Salkehatchie 2,166,756
$36,183,810

Direct evidence of a general improvement in in-stream water

quality as a result of construction or upgrading POTWs was not avail-

able for all waterbodies at the time of this assessment because of the

nature of the DHEC sampling program. Monitoring data showed improved

water quality for six waterbodies and a maintenance of good water

quality for eight waterbodies. There is no strategically located

trend monitoring station downstream of many of the projects. Treat-

ment requirements are based on stream conditions during low-flow

periods; therefore, enhanced water quality may not be evidenced during

normal streamflows. Also, the affected stream may not have had time

to respond to the reduced wasteload in the short period since treatment

plant improvements were put in place.

We know, however, that improved waste treatment by newly con-

structed or upgraded treatment works have resulted in favorable water

quality benefits. Many 201 grants were awarded to construct inter-

ceptor lines in areas where there may have been several small problem

dischargers. This construction eliminated poorly treated effluent

into many streams. Predictive water quality models help determine

136

the level of treatment to maintain in-stream quality standards and

when treatment facilities are constructed or upgraded these models

predict increased in-stream quality commensurate with increased treat-

ment. Improved water quality is also implied by data contained in

Discharge Monitoring Reports that are submitted to DHEC by each treat-

ment plant owner on a monthly basis. When newly constructed or up-

graded POTW's meet NPDES permit conditions for effluent where before

they did not, improved in-stream water quality can be assumed.

6.1.1.2. Pretreatment Program and Toxics Control

The Department of Health and Environmental Control reviewed and

approved 53 pretreatment programs for POTWs during FY 84 and 35. All

of these programs have been implemented at this time. There are

currently four additional pretreatment programs under review by the

Department.

There has been an associated direct benefit to water quality

demonstrated from many of the implemented pretreatment programs. In

particular, there has been a reduction in toxic discharges from POTWs

which receive industrial discharges. Significant improvements in

water quality are expected as all approved pretreatment programs are

fully implemented.

During FY 86 the Department implemented a policy of requiring

Total Residual Chlorine (TRC) limits on all new and reissued P0T7 and

private community (domestic) NPDES permits. The Agency is entering

the third year of this requirement which has resulted in approximately

40 to 50 percent of all domestic permits now containing TRC limits.

6.1.1.3. Stormwater Controls

South Carolina has no known combined stormwater/sanitary sewer

discharges associated w-ith POTWs. Stormwater slugs overload treatment

137

facilities and tend to disrupt the sewage treatment process; there-

fore, combined sewers are usually prohibited by local ordinance.

Stormwater runoff control on POTU sites is mandatory in some areas of

the State. The S.C. Coastal Council reviews and approves plans that

address this issue for all new publicly owned treatment plants in

coastal counties. DHEC withholds issuing a permit to begin construc-

tion of the facility until such plans are approved by the Council.

S.C. Coastal Council has developed stormwater management guidelines

that are followed when evaluating a project for a permit or certifi-

cation.

The Department is currently developing'a state stormwater permit-

ting program policy in support of EPA guidelines of requirements

required by the 1987 amendments to the Clean Water Act.

6.1.1.4. Strategies Planned to Improve the Municipal Facility Program

DHEC district personnel inspect the operation and maintenance

programs of POTWs on a routine basis. Deficiencies noted during

inspections may require DHEC to take legal enforcement action. Opera-

tional advice is also provided on a limited basis by DHEC staff. The

South Carolina Environmental Training Center at Sumter Area Technical

College also provides training for treatment plant operators.

DHEC has recently developed sludge management guidance for munici-

palities. All NPOES permits issued or reissued during the last 13

months, where applicable, direct the POTW to obtain a sludge disposal

permit. The permit guidance generally requires the sludge generator to

monitor the content of its sludge and to dispose of it in an environ-

mentally acceptable manner. Enforcement action has been taken against

those POTWs that have not met the schedule for obtaining a sludge

disposal permit. The sludge management guidance and procedures were

fully implemented during FY 1987.

138

6.1.2. Industrial and Agricultural Facilities

6.1.2.1. Industrial Facilities

OHEC reviews NPOES permit applications for new and existing

facilities and determines whether treatment must be based on tech-

nology or water quality. The method which results in more stringent

effluent limits is used to develop applicable permit limits.

Effluent guidelines, where promulgated by EPA, are used to determine

technology based limits. If EPA effluent guidelines have not been

developed, best professional judgement of technology based limits is

used. Water quality limits are developed using computerized water

quality modelling procedures which result in wasteload allocations

for substances affecting in-stream oxygen levels. EPA water quality

criteria and/or biological monitoring are used to determine limits

for potentially toxic constituents. Where appropriate, permit limits

are developed using a combination of water quality lirrfitations,

toxicity limits, and biological monitoring (end of pipe and in-

stream) to insure that there are no adverse impacts from point

source discharges.

6.1.2.2. Agricultural Facil-ities

Wastewaters from concentrated animal production or fruit and

vegetable processing facilities' may be just as detrimental to water

quality as municipal and industrial point source discharges. To

prevent these untreated wastes from entering the waters of the

State, DHEC requires that both solid and liquid agricultural wastes

from these facilities be collected, treated, and disposed of in an

environmentally acceptable manner. This is primarily accomplished

through a State permitting and inspection program requiring recycling

or land application of agricultural wastes. This type of disposal

139

has eliminated most direct surface water discharges of agricultural

wastes and has thus been effective in improving water quality.

6.1.2.3. Toxics Controls

Toxic pollutants are generally defined as substances which by

themselves or in combination with other chemicals are harmful to

animal life or human health. They include some of the metals,

pesticides, and other synthetic organic pollutants that contaminate

water, fish tissue, and bottom sediments. !JHEC has sought to con-

trol these' substances in sewage treatment plant effluent, and bio-

logical investigations conducted by the Department and the regulated

community have shown that these controls are effective. Documented

toxicity problems related to point source dischargers are not wide-

spread in South Carolina waters. In areas where localized problems

have been identified, DHEC efforts have resulted in more stringent

effluent limitations; modification of treatment plant processes or

wastewater controls; and, in some cases, complete elimination of.

problem dischargers.

While chlorination is the typical method of disinfection of

wastewater in the State, any excess chlorine in the effluent has

been shown to have a toxic effect on fish and other aquatic life.

As a result, OHEC -has implemented a program requiring chlorine

residual limits on all NPOES permits for wastewater treatment plants

that use chlorine in the treatment process. This requirement per-

tains to municipal, industrial, and private domestic facilities.

These effluent limits are based on water quality criteria developed

by EPA. Where water quality is not a limiting factor, maximum

effluent limits of 0.5 mg/l monthly average and 1.0 mg/l daily

average are imposed to further reduce potential impacts.

140

6.1.3. Wasteload Allocations and Total Maximum Daily Loads

A wasteload allocation, a determination of the amount of a

pollutant a waterbody can assimilate without violating in-stream

standards, is developed for every wastewater discharger in the

State. Computerized mathematical models which simulate in-stream

conditions are used to determine WLAs for 90 percent of all dis-

chargers. WLAs are most often used to determine NPDES effluent

permit limits but are also an input to 201 Facilities Plans and

208 Areawide Water Quality Management Plans.

Total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) for oxygen-demanding

substances are developed for stream segments which have competing

interests for assimilative capacity. Waterbodies for which TMDLs

have been calculated are Wando River, Charleston Harbor, Waccamaw

River, ICWW, Bush River, Durbin Creek, Catawba River, South Tyger

River, Twelve Mile Creek, Wilson Creek/Ninety Six Creek, Lower

Saluda River, Wateree River, Lawson's Fork Creek, and Congaree

River. As new information or data is obtained on these water-

bodies, the TMDLs are appropriately revised. Streams for which

new or revised TMDLs are needed include Ashley River, Cooper

River, ICW4W, and Beaufort River.

141

6.1.4. Permit Compliance and Enforcement

6.1.4.1. Compliance

The Bureau of Water Pollution Control currently maintains the,

State Data Management Network System which ensures that NPDES Permit

compliance status is available for all point source discharges. This

system allows managers within the Enforcement Section to review

results from operation and maintenance inspections, sampling inspec-

tions, effluent data, compliance schedules, and pretreatment inspec-

tions in a timely manner. Staff have made the transition from main-

tenance of personal files to utilization of the system which is

beginning to demonstrate reliability for immediate determination of

facility compliance.

Municipal compliance has received priority emphasis throughout

the 80's and South Carolina has actively pursued compliance with the

National Municipal Policy mandates. All non-complying major and minor

municipal facilities were'placed on enforceable schedules prior to FY

87 and staff have been engaged in tracking to assure schedules are

met.

Compliance tracking receives a balanced effort at the State level

with regard to major and minor industrial, private domestic-, and

municipal permittees and all instances of significant noncompliance

are addressed. Tracking involves a multifaceted approach with review

of effluent data, compliance schedules, facility operation and main-

tenance and pretreatment status. Completion of the State Data Manage-

ment Network System will enhance compliance tracking capabilities and

hardware purchases and staff's development of data entry skills will

assure an accurate interface with the Permit Compliance System (PCS).

PCS will be supported by data entry of discharge monitoring and com-

pliance schedule data on a monthly basis.

142

Several other compliance tracking tools are utilized to ensure

the principal staff and other interested parties are kept informed of

compliance status of regulated facilities. Quarterly Activity Reports

and the Quarterly Noncompliance Reports are frequently utilized docu-

ments. An inspection update developed within the past several years

enhances staff's overview capabilities and affords an opportunity to

determine if permit requirements for operation and maintenance are

being maintained. The update is supplied monthly and is used in the

prioritization of operation and maintenance activity.

Pretreatment audits and inspections are the mechanisms currently

used for pretreatment compliance tracking. Compliance reviews have

resulted in the identification of several noncompliant pretreatment

p~ograms in 1987 and necessitated action.

The compliance review process continues to become uiore efficient

as overview techniques are upgraded. South Carolina seeks to pursue

the most effective means of compliance review and adopt the most

productive compliance review products to assure that acceptable levels

of complidnce are maintained.

6.1.4.2. Enforcement

The U.S. EPA National Municipal Policy, issued in 1984, placed

State Enforcement programs in a position of high visibility in the

mid-1980's and South Carolina met the challenge by achieving Federal

mandates aimed at assuring municipal compliance by July 1, 1983. The

State enforcement program was responsible for the establishment of

order schedules to abate noncompliance situations for approximately

sixty (60) POTW's with some twenty (20) facilities remaining under

permit schedules of compliance. In all cases enforcement staff have

been responsible for tracking schedule compliance and initiating

143

enforcement action where necessary. The emphasis placed on the

issuance, tracking, and follow-up actions by the enforcement staff has

yielded noteworthy results with only seven (7) of approximately eighty

(80) POTW's violating schedules as July 1, 1988 approaches. These

violations are currently being addressed.

While enforcement activities surrounding the National Municipal

Policy gained the limelight between 1984 and 1987, other enforcement

activities continued to receive staff attention necessary to assure

effluent limit compliance and maintenance of water quality where

industrial and private domestic permittees were involved. Violations

in all categories of noncompliance involving all permittees were

handled effectively and expeditiously. Categories of noncompliance

not. mentioned previously but receiving attention were unauthorized

discharges, operation and maintenance violations, NPDES effluent

violations, pretreatment violations, groundwater contamination, and

u'npermitted construction and operation of waste treatment facilities.

The broad range of enforcement activity demonstrates the program's

diverse capability to remain effective in many areas of required

activity while meeting the Federal mandates of the National Municipal

Policy.

As new facilities are constructed and old systems are removed

from service, the enforcement program's emphasis is changing to

actively address the operation and maintenance of these facilities.

All permittees are presently seeing this additional emphasis due to

the data handling tools available to the enforcement manager and

additional 0&0 emphasis is assured.

As the program moves into 1988-1989, effluent quality is seen as

a measure of water quality. The enforcement program sees its com-

144

mitment to monitor effluent quality and take timely effective actions

as necessary to assure that the water quality of South Carolina is

maintained where suitable and enhanced where needed.

145

6.2. NONPOINT SOURCE CONTROL PROGRAMS

6.2.1. General Description

The State draws from a variety of resources in its efforts to

control nonpoint sources (NPS) of pollution. These take the form of

both federal and state programs and may be regulatory or non-

regulatory in nature. Further, these resources lie both in DHEC's

Bureau of Water Pollution Control and in other state agencies with

related missions.

6.2.2. Section 319 Program

In late 1987, Congress, as part of the "Water Quality Act" passed

the most comprehensive legislation dealing with NPS to date. Section

319 of the Act requires states to assess nonpoint source pollution and

to define a management program to control and abate it by August 1988.

To meet this federal mandate, the S.C. Department of, Health and

Environmental Control has embarked on a three stage program to conduct

a comprehensive NPS assessment, target specific waters where nonpoint

sources need control, and develop and implement management strategies.

Objectives of the assessment include identifying nonpoint source

impacted surface waters statewide, identifying causes of NPS pol-

lution, and recommending programs and methods for controlling this

pollution. The list of impacted waters and causes of those NPS

impacts is included elsewhere in, this document. Existing data and

information were utilized to compile the list. DHEC field personnel,

.other state agencies, and the interested public were also consulted.

Further, sophisticated computer modelling was used to identify water-

bodies in areas where a greater potential for NPS impacts exist.

Subsequently, this list of problem areas and associated category of

NPS will be prioritized and consideration will be given to the value

146

of the particular water for aquatic habitat and other designated uses

such as water supply and recreation, the NPS pollution threat to the

environment and to public health, and the feasibility of controlling

the particular category of NPS pollution at that location. The result

will be a ranked list of waterbodies where nonpoint source control

will be emphasized.

The second phase of this NPS program calls for a management

strategy to control and alleviate the problems noted in the assess-

ment. Nonpoint source management controls will be regulatory and

non-regulatory in nature. Regulatory programs include enforcing

existing laws, regulations, and ordinances or developing or revising

them as needed. Sediment control ordinances and stormwater control

ordinances are the most common regulatory control mechanisms for

nonpoint source pollution. Non-regulatory programs include providing

technical assistance to land users on establishing best management

practices (BMPs) that reduce erosion, developing and producing

educational publications on BMPs and general awareness of NPS pol-

lution, and setting up demonstration projects for nonpoint source

control practices. There are specific nonpoint source control

practices for the various categories of activities, and they will be

matched to the target waterbodies described in the assessment.

When the State has an EPA approved management plan, we will begin

the implementation phase of the overall program. This involves

putting in place the control strategies required in the managment plan

with the idea of alleviating the most critical NPS problems within a

four year period.

Funding for the effort will come mainly from EPA grants under

Section 319 and 205(j), and augmented with State funds. The public

147

will be provided with an opportunity for input and drafts of assessment

and management plans will be circulated to the interested public.

6.2.3. Section 208 Programs

The State nonpoint Source 208 Water Quality M1anagement Plan,

completed in the early 1980's, addressed agriculture, construction,

mining, silviculture, groundwater contamination, residual waste

disposal, hydrologic modifications, and urban runoff. The categories,

of greatest concern to the State are agriculture, construction, and

groundwater contamination. The State's nonpoint source (NPS). control

strategy incorporates both regulatory and voluntary approaches to

compliance. Regulatory programs are in place for mining, residual

waste disposal, hydrologic modifications, and construction activities.

Voluntary programs are used for -agricultural and silvicultural

activities. Accelerated programs of technical, financial, and

educational assistance are recommended to encourage the implementation

of Best Management Practices (-BMPs) to control pollution from these

activities. To control construction related NPS pollution, the Plan

recommended the development of a statewide regulatory program. The

legislature enacted the Sediment Control Act in 1934 with the S.C.

Land Resources Conservation Commission as the implementing agency.

Ground-water resources are partially protected by existing

regulatory programs which cover activities such as land disposal of

residual and hazardous wastes, feedlots, stockpiles, surface impound-

ments, hazardous materials spills, well drilling, underground storage

tanks, and the underground injection of wastes.

Urban runoff has proven to be a significant nonpoint source in

one of the State's most rapidly developing areas, the urbanized

148

coastal zone. In 1978, Myrtle Beach was designated a Nationwide Urban

Runoff Program demonstration area for purposes of studying the impact

of stormwater runoff upon surf water quality. The implementation of

recommended BMPs, in these and other metropolitan areas of the State

has lagged, primarily due to hesitancy on the part of local govern-

ments to adopt the necessary land use controls and development

standards. The Coastal Areawide Uater Quality Management Plans for

urban runoff were updated in cooperation with the S.C. Coastal

Council. Part of this update included a special water quality study of

the Ashley River system located in the Charleston area. The study was

completed with the cooperation of the U.S. Geological Survey. The

results should provide a thorough picture of stormwater contribution

of pollutant loadings in this tidal river system and indicate manage-

ment approaches needed to address stormwater pollution concerns.

6.2.4. Section 401 Programs

Section 401 of the Federal Clean Water Act requires that all

applicants for a Federal permit or license which may result in a

discharge to navigable waters obtain certification from the Depart-

ment. This certification insures that the project will be conducted

in a manner which will not violate State water quality standards. The

Department issues certification for primarily three types of projects:

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Section 10 (navigation) -and Section 404

(dredge and fill) permits; U.S. Coast Guard bridge permits; and

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission licenses for hydroelectric

projects. Certification is often issued with conditions which become

part of the Federal permit or license. These conditions usually

address nonpoint pollution sources, especially sediment loss to a

waterbody.

149

The Department also routinely reviews plans for highway and

utility line construction. Recommendations are made that effective

nonpoint control measures be implemented during and after construction

to minimize sediment loss to affected waterbodies.

6.2.5. Shellfish Sanitation Program

Stormwater discharges and other categories of NPS pollution have.

had the greatest adverse impact on coastal shellfish growing waters.

They carry coliform bacteria and other contaminants into the shellfish

beds. As a result of sanitary surveys conducted by DHEC personnel,

restricted or prohibited harvest status must be assigned to shellfish

areas with increased pollutant levels. This means the shellfish may

not be taken from these areas for direct marketing. It is anticipated

that BMPs instituted as a result of the State's NPS control programs

will open up these areas again to shellfish harvesting.

6.2.6. Best Management Practices Requirements on NPDES Permits for

Industrial Facilities

All major permits and the majority of the minor Industrial

Facility NPDES permits contain the following language:

The permittee shall develop and implement a Best Management

Practices (BtiP) Plan to identify and control the discharge of signifi-

cant amounts of oils and the hazardous and toxic substances listed in

40 CFR Part 117 and Tables 11 and III of Appendix D to 40 CFR Part

122. The Plan shall include a listing of all potential sources of

spills or leaks of these materials; a method of containment; a descrip-

tion of training, inspection, and security procedures; and emergency

response measures to be taken in the event of a discharge to surface

waters or plans and/or procedures which constitute an equivalent DMP.

Sources of such discharges 'may include materials storage areas; in-

150

plant transfer, process and material handling areas; loading and

unloading operations plant site runoff; and sludge and waste disposal

areas. The BMP plan shall be developed in accordance with good

engineering practices, shall be documented in narrative form, and

shall include any necessary plot plans, drawings, or maps. The BHP

plan shall be developed no later than six months after issuance of the

final NPDES permit or permit modification, and shall be implemented no

later than one year after issuance of the final permit or modifica-

tion.

When a permit is reissued and a BMP plan had previously been

required, the reissued permit will require the permittee to update and

maintain the BHP plan.

Before issuing NPDES permits or State construction permits to

municipal, private, domes-tic, or industrial waste treatment plants

DHEC staff considers the potential for contamination of stormwater

runoff from the plant site. If necessary, DHEC can require best

management practices (BMPs) to control the runoff. Monitoring of the

stormwater may also be required. Although large municipalities

collect the stormwater runoff, it is discharged untreated into nearby

streams and rivers.

EPA has proposed that any publicly owned stormwater discharge be

permitted under the NPDES system. The permits would probably contain

parameter limits and require the monitoring of these parameters.

Although this proposed program may have isolated beneficial impacts on

water quality, it would be very expensive for local governments and

the State to administer and may not be cost-effective in terms of

water quality improvements.

151

6.2.7 Other State and Local Government Involvement

The following agencies have either regulatory, educational, or

assistance programs for the indicated nonpoint source categories.

AGENCY NONPOINT SOURCE

S.C. Department of Health and
Environmental Control Groundwater Contamination,
Residual Waste

S.C. Coastal Council Stormwater Runoff

S.C. Forestry Commission Silviculture

S.C. Land Resources Conser-
vation Commission Agriculture, Construttion,
Mining
S.C. Water Resources Com-
mission Hydrologic Modification

Five Designated Regional Councils Urban Runoff
of Government

Table 6.2.A. shows the specific existing and recommended nonpoint

source control programs administered by the various agencies mentioned

above.

152

Table 6.2.A.

Existing and Recommended Nonpoint Source Control Programs in South Carolina

Type of Nonpoint Source Type of Control Program
Existing Recommended

Urban M M,R,S,E,T

Agriculture E,T,F,M E,T,F,M

Animal wastes R,E,T,F,M R,E,T,F,M

Silviculture E,T,F,?M E,T,F,M

Mini ng R ,M R,M

Construction E,T,M E,T,R,M

Hydrological modifications R,[1 R,M

Saltwater intrusions R,1 R,M

Residual waste/landfill R,M R,M

Type of Control Program

S = structural/public works
E = education
T = technical assistance
F = financial incentives
R = regulation
M = monitoring

153

6.3. Wetlands Programs

The main mechanisms for wetlands protection in South Carolina are

through federal and state regulatory programs for the discharge of

dredged or fill material and activities in critical areas in the

coastal zone. Following is a brief description of these existing

federal and state programs and their relationship to wetlands pro-

tection.

Section 404 Permit Program

Section 404 of the federal Clean Watei Act requires a permit for

the discharge of dredged or fill material into navigable waters. The

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers administers this program in South

Carolina; the Environmental Protection Agency has ultimate authority

in that it may prohibit the use of a disposal site if the discharge

will- have an adverse -impact on municipal water 'supplies, shellfish

beds and fishery areas, wildlife, or recreational areas. This permit-

ting program applies to activities in navigable waters, their tribu-

taries, and wetlands adjacent to these waters. Isolated wetlands are

not included in the jurisdiction of the 404 program.

Section 401 Water Quality Certification

Section 401 of the Federal Clean Water Act requires any applicant

for a federal license or permit to conduct an activity which may

result in a discharge to navigable waters to receive certification

from the State that the discharge will not cause a contravention of

the State's water quality standards. The South Carolina Department of

Health and En vironmental Control is the agency which issues certifi-

cation in South Carolina. Those activities in wetlands adjacent to

navigable waters which require Section 404 permits, also require

certification. The Department evaluates whether or not the proposed

154

activity will adversely impact the water quality of the wetlands, but

certification has not traditionally been used as a wetlands protection

mechanism.

Coastal Zone Management Program

The South Carolina Coastal Council reviews Section 404 permits as

well as administers its own permit 'program for projects within

critical areas in the Coastal Zone. Critical areas are saline waters

subject to tidal ebb and flow, tidelands, beaches, and primary ocean

front dunes. The Coastal Council provides additional protection to

isolated freshwater wetlands in the eight coastal counties through

review of applications for Section 404 permits under Corps Nationwide

Permit Number 26 where. the activity will result in the discharge of

.dredged or fill material and cause the loss of modification of 10

acres or less of non-tidal waters above stream headwaters or in

isolated waters, including wetlands.

South Carolina Heritage Trust Program

This program is responsible for surveying'and'inventoring rare or

vanishing plant and animal species and plant and natural communities.

This -Includes wetlands communities and the Heritage Trust Program, has

had a particular interest in Carolina Bays. The program provides

protection to special areas through aquisition, easement, or land-

owners cooperation.

Wetlands Legislation

Two separate bills which would regulate activities in freshwater

wetlands were submitted to the State legislature in FY 1937. One

bill would require a permit for activities in all freshwater wet-

lands, even isolated wetlands; and no activity to be undertaken in

these wetlands would be exempt from permitting. This bill also

155

includes a mandatory education program and a complete wetlands

inventory.

A second bill is not as comprehensive as the first. Only wet-

lands adjacent to streams with an annual flow greater than 5 cfs would

be regulated and only certain activities such as dredging, deposition,

construction of structures, and hydrologic modification would require

permits. Other activities are exempt under this proposed legislation.

Other priorities in the South Carolina legislature have kept

either of these bills from moving this session.

156

6.4. SURFACE WATER MONITORING PROGRAM

The South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control

maintains a fixed monitoring network with water quality sampling stations

located statewide to define the physical, chemical, and biological con-

ditions of streams, lakes, and tidal saltwaters. In fiscal year 1987 the

network consisted of 135 primary stations, 358 secondary stations, 187

sediment stations, and 78 biological stations. Twenty-six of the 185

primary stations are included in the U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency's basic water monitoring program.

Primary stations are sampled once per month, year round. The

criteria used in locating primary stations are as follows:

1. Influent to segment (sub-basin)
2. Effluent to segment
3. Major streams at state lines
4. Confluence of major streams
5. :Above a major industrial area
6. Below a major industrial area
7. Water quality limited area
8. Major lake
9. Above major municipal area
10. Below major municipal area
11. Mouth of major tributary
12. Major water use area
13. Above major land use area
14. Below major land use area
15. Above a water intake
16. Sites located for special studies
17. Other

Monthly measurements are made for physical parameters, bacteria,

dissolved oxygen, biochemical oxygen demand, and nutrients. Heavy metals

are measured quarterly; pesticides, PCBs, and other organics are measured

annually.

Secondary stations are sampled once per month from May through

October. The criteria used in locating secondary stations are as

fol lows:

157

1. Known water quality problem areas; usually located in relation to

a smaller discharge.

2. Potential water quality problem areas; these are areas with

numerous complaints or nonpoint source problems.

3. Same selection criteria as used for primary stations.

Parameter coverage for secondary stations is similar to but less exten-

sive than that for primary Stations.

Sediment samples are collected once- per year at stations located

influent or effluent to a sub-basin, in an environmental sink area, or in

a known problem area.

Biological stations are located in the headwater reaches of

selected major impoundments; in major waterbodies potentially subject to

pollution from urban, industrial, or agricultural uses; and in areas of

critical value for Uses such as water supply, recreation, or propagation

and maintenance of fish and wildlife. Biological monitoring includes

identification and enumeration of phytoplankton, aquatic macroinverte-

brates, and fish, as well as analysis of finfish and shellfish for toxic

materials.

A complete description of the monitoring program is presented in

the State of South Carolina Monitoring Strategy, a document which is

updated annually.

6.4.1. Special Water Quality Studies

Forty water quality related studies were conducted during

fiscal years 1986 and 1987. These studies were designed and con-

ducted to meet a variety of objectives including the acquisition

of background data in areas where the data base was minimal to

non-existent; known or suspected water quality problem areas;

158

"before and after" studies; data collection for model calibration

and/or verification; and ongoing special projects. Data was

gathered, depending on the individual study objective, for a

variety of media-water, sediment, biota, tissue - and included

chemical, physical and/or population dynamics information. Table

6.3.A. lists the locations of intensive surveys conducted during

fiscal years 1986 and 1987.

159

Table 6.4.A.

Water Quality Studies
FY 1986 and FY 1987
South Carolina

FY 1986
Stream County Sub-basin

Lake Greenwood/Boyd Mill Pond Greenwood 03-08-44-46

Lake Hartwell Pickens/Anderson 03-13-12

Major reservoirs Statewide Statewide

Lower Saluda River Richland/Lexington 03-08-38

Unnamed Trib. to Crane Creek Richland 03-08-50

Fairforest Creek Spartanburg 03-08-64

Tributary to Reedy River Greenville 03-08-46

Tributary to 6-mile Creek Richland 03-08-24

Sawney Creek Abbevi lle 03-13-08

Campbell Creek Beaufort 03-09-20

Lake Marion Sumter 03-03-04

Green Swamp Sumter 03-07-14

Unnamed Fee Ponds Spartanburg --

Lawsons Fork Creek Spartanburg 03-08-68

Ransom Creek Spartanburg 03-08-64

Tributary to Ashley River Charleston 03-08-14

Stono River Charleston 03-08-14

Wilson Creek Greenwood 03-08-42

Saluda River Newberry/Greenwood/Saluda 03-08-42

ICWW/Waccamaw River Georgetown 03-07-02
______________________________________________________________________________
Continued on next page

160

FY 1987

Stream County Sub-basin

Bear/Sawneys Creeks Fairfield 03-08-28

Lake Wateree/Fishing Creek Chester/Fairfield 03-08-30-32
Reservoirs

Lake Hartwell Pickens/Anderson 03-13-12

Tributary to 18-mile Creek Pickens 03-13-12

Jimmies Creek Spartanburg 03-08-66

Tributary to Winyah Bay Georgetown 03-07-02

Langley Pond Aiken 03-13-06

North Inlet/Winyah Bay Georgetown 03-07-02

Lake Marion Sumter 03-08-04

American Legion Lake Abbeville 03-08-44

Lower Saluda River Richland/Lexington 03-08-38

Lake Greenwood/Bdyd Mill Pond Greenwood/ 03-08-44-46

Lake Edgar Brown Barnwell 03-09-24

Tributary to Catawba River York 03-08-36

Turkey Creek Sumter 03-07-14

North Fork Edisto River Orangeburg 03-09-14

Stono River Charleston 03-08-14

Upper Ashley River Charleston/Dorchester 03-18-18

Church Creek/Bohicket Creek Charleston 03-09-02

Cove-Lake Murray Lexington 03-08-38

161

6.5. Water Reclassifications

The Department of Health and Environmental Control is very active

with water reclassifications. Most reclassifications are initiated

after receiving a written request from an individual, special interest

group, or organization. The Department also proposes waters for

reclassification where existing water quality is better than required

to protect the classified uses or if there are existing uses not

recognized by the present classification.

During FY 86 and FY 87 the Department held public hearings for

four reclassification actions: Matthews Creek-Greenville County, North

Inlet Estuary-Georgetown County, Wando River-Berkeley and Charleston

Counties, and Chattooga River-Oconee County. The Department also

received additional requests during the time period. Table 6.5.A.

shows the-current status of all reclassification actions.

Water reclassifications are an amendment to a State regulation

and, as such, are not effective until approved by the South Carolina

General Assembly. Reclassification for the waters listed in'Table

6.5.B. became effective during FY 86 and FY 87.

162

Table 6.5.A.

Waters With Reclassifications Effective
During FY 1986 - FY 1987
Effective Date: Mlarch 27, 1987

ADAMS CREEK: Charleston County
The entire Creek tributary to Bohicket Creek, Class SAA

ALLIGATOR CREEK: Colleton County
The entire Creek tributary to the South Edisto River, CLass SAA

BAILEY CREEK: Charleston County
The entire Creek tributary to St. Pierre Creek, Class SAA

BIG BAY CREEK: Charleston County
The entire Creek tributary to the South Edisto River, Class SAA

BOHICKET CREEK: Charleston County
From Church Creek to Fickling Creek, Class SA; from Fickling Creek to
North Edisto River, Class SAA

DAWHO RIVER: Charleston County
The entire River from the South Edisto River to the North Edisto River', Class SAA

FISHING CREEK: Charleston County
From its headwaters to a point 2 miles from its mouth, Class SA;
from this point to its confluence with St. Pierre Creek, Class SAA

FISHING CREEK: Charleston County
The entire Creek tributary to Dawho River, Class SAA

FRAMPTON INLET: Charleston County
The entire Inlet tributary to the Atlantic Ocean, Class SAA

FRAMPTON CREEK: Charleston County
The entire Creek tributary to Frampton Inlet, Class SAA

GARDEN CREEK: Charleston County
The entire Creek tributary to Toogoodoo Creek, Class SAA

GIBSON CREEK: Charleston County
The entire Creek tributary to Wadmalaw River, Class SAA

INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY: Charleston County
From the South Edisto River to Dawho River, Class SA; from Dawho River to
Gibson Creek, Class SAA

JEREMY INLET: Charleston County
The entire Inlet tributary to the Atlantic ocean, Class SAA

Continued on next page.

163

Table 6.5.A. (continued)

LEADENWAH CREEK: Charleston County
The entire Creek tributary to the North Edisto River, Class SAA

LONG CREEK: Charleston County
The entire Creek tributary to Steamboat Creek, Class SAA

LOWER TOOGOODOO CREEK: Charleston County
From its headwaters to a point 3 miles from its mouth, Class SA;
from this point to its confluence with Toogoodoo Creek, Class SAA

McLEOD CREEK (also called Tom Point Creek): Charleston County
The entire Creek tributary to the North Edisto River, Class SAA

MILTON CREEK: Charleston County
The entire Creek tributary to St. Pierre, Class SAA

MOSQUITO CREEK: Colleton County
That portion of the Creek from Bull Cut to the South Edisto River, Class SAA

MUD CREEK: Charleston County
The entire Creek tributary to the South Edisto River, Class SAA

NORTH EDISTO RIVER: Charleston County
From its headwaters to the Intracoastal Waterway, Class SAA; from the
Intracoastal Waterway to Steamboat Creek, Class SA; from Steamboat Creek
to the Atlantic ocean, Class SAA

OCELLA CREEK: Charleston County
The entire Creek tributary to the North. Edisto River, Class SAA

PRIVATEER CREEK: Charleston County
The entire Creek tributary to the North Edisto River, Class SAA

RUSSELL CREEK: Charleston County
The entire Creek tributary to Dawho River, Class SAA

ST. PIERRE CREEK: Charleston County
The entire Creek tributary to the South Edisto River, Class SAA

SAMPSON ISLAND CREEK: Colleton County
The entire Creek tributary to the South Edisto River, Class SAA

SAND CREEK: Charleston County
The entire Creek tributary to Steamboat Creek, Class SAA

SCOTT CREEK: Charleston County
The entire Creek from Big Bay Creek to Jermey Inlet, Class SAA

SHINGLE CREEK: Charleston County
The entire Creek tributary to St. Pierre Creek, Class SAA

SOUTH CREEK: Charleston County
The entire Creek tributary to Ocella Creek, Class SAA
______________________________________________________________________________
Continued on next page.

164

Table 6.5.A. (continued)

SOUTH EDISTO RIVER: Charleston and Colleton Counties
From Dawho River to Mud Creek, Class SAA; from Mud Creek to the Atlantic
ocean, Class SA

STEAMBOAT CREEK: Charleston County
The entire Creek tributary to the North Edisto River, Class SAA

STORE CREEK: Charleston County
The entire Creek tributary to St. Pierre Creek, Class SAA

SWINTON CREEK: Charleston County
The entire Creek tributary to Lower Toogoodoo Creek, Class SAA

TOM POINT CREEK (also called McLeod Creek): Charleston County
The entire Creek tributary to the North'Edisto River, Class SAA

TOOGOODOO CREEK: Charleston County
The entire Creek tributary to the North Edisto River, Class SAA

TOWNSEND RIVER: Charleston County
The entire Creek tributary to Frampton Inlet, Class SAA

WADMALAW RIVER: Charleston County
That portion of the River from Gibson Creek to the North Edisto River,
Class SAA

WESTBANK CREEK: Charleston County
The entire Creek tributary to the North Edisto River, Class SAA

WHOOPING ISLAND CREEK: Charleston County
The entire Creek tributary to Steamboat Creek, Class SAA

6.6 Recommendations

* The State continue its point source permitting policy of issuing

water quality based NPDES permits.

* The State at least maintain, and when resources are available,

enhance its current monitoring and assessment strategy.

* The State continue its efforts to identify and manage nonpoint

sources of water quality impacts contingent on adequate funding.

165