81
32
32
Technical Report Series
Number 82-3
ASSESSMENT OF
SEAFOOD PROCESSING AND
PACKING PLANT DISCHARGES
AND THEIR IMPACTS ON
GEORGIA'S ESTUARIES
Keith W. Gates
Brian E. Perkins
Jackie G. EuDaly
Amanda S. Harrison
Wayne A. Bough
31
31
Georgia Marine Science Center
~niversity System of Georgia
Skidaway Island, Georgia
y
81
ASSESSMENT OF
SEAFOOD PROCESSING AND PACKING PLANT DISCHARGES
AND THEIR
!~PACTS
ON GEORGIA'S ESTUARIES
Technical Report 82-3
by
Keith W. Gates
Brian E. Perkins
Jackie G. EuDaly
Amanda S. Harrison
Wayne A. Bough*
The University of Georgia
Marine Extension Service
P.O. Box Z
Brunswick, GA 31523
The Technical Report Series of the Georgia Marine Science Center is issued
by the Georgia Sea Grant College Program and the ~~ririe Extension Service of
the University of Georgia on Skidaway Island (P.O. Box 13687, Savannah, GA
31406). It was established to provide dissemination of technical information
and progress reports resulting from marine studies and investigations mainly
by staff and faculty of the University System of Georgia. In addition, it is
intended for the presentation of techniques and methods, reduced data, and
general information of interest to industry, local, regional, and state governments and the public. Information contained in these reports is in the
public domain. If this publication is cited, it should be cited as an unpublished manuscript.
(Sea Grant College Program, Grant #04-BMOl-175)
*Present address:
P.O. Box 1837 S.S.S., Springfield, MO 65085
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The technical assistance of Ms. Kathy Bennett, Ms. Lea Dowdy, Ms. Sandy
Gale, Ms. Cindy Nolen, Mr. William Stringfellow, and Mr. Marc Wright is
gratefully acknowledged .
This publication is a result of work sponsored by the National
Fisheries Institute, the University of Georgia, and the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U. S. Department of Canmerce ,
through the National Sea Grant Program (Grant #04-SMOl-175). The
U. S. Government is authorized to produce and distribute reprints for
governmental purposes notwithstanding any copyright notation that might
appear hereon.
1
ABSTRACf
A study to determine the impact of seafood packing and processing
effluents discharged to southeastern estuarine waters was conducted
in July and August of 1979 . The envirorunental impact of current seafood
processing wastes on Georgia's estuaries appears to be minllnal when
compared with the natural organic load. One large estuary demonstrated
a high residual capacity to receive processing effluents without
significant change. The BOD load from shrimp thawing, peeling, sorting,
and cleaning operations at a large seafood processing plant w~s shown
to be equivalent to the organic material generated by a 302 m plot
(57 ft. x 57 ft.) of salt marsh. NH4-N levels were greater than, but
the same order of magnitude as, natural runoff from marsh land.
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acknowledgements
i
Abstract
ii
List of Figures
iii
List of Tables
vi
Introduction
l
Materials and Methods
2
Sample Site Selection
3
Results and Discussion
5
Conclusions
21
References
26
Figures
29
Tables
76
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure
1.
Study Areas
29
2.
Undeveloped Estuary
30
3.
Developed Estuary
31
4.
Duplin River Temperature (°C) Profile (Hydrographic Survey)
32
5.
Duplin River Salinity Profile ( 0 /oo) (Hydrographic Survey)
33
6.
Duplin River D.O. (mg/1) and (% Saturation) Profile
(Hydrographic Survey)
34
Shellbluff Creek Temperature (°C) Profile (Hydrographic
Survey)
35
Shellbluff Creek Salinity Profile ( 0 /oo) (Hydrographic
Survey)
36
Shellbluff Creek D.O. Profile (mg/1) and (% Saturation)
(Hydrographic Survey)
37
10.
Cedar Creek Temperature (°C) Profile (Hydrographic Survey)
38
11.
Cedar Creek Salinity Profile ( 0 /oo) (Hydrographic Survey)
39
12.
Cedar Creek D.O. (mg/1) and (% Saturation) Profile
(Hydrographic Survey)
40
Brunswick Estuary Profile (Southern Area) Temperature
(°C) (Hydrographic Survey)
41
Brunswick Estuary Salinity Profile ( 0 /oo) (Southern Area)
(Hydrographic Survey)
42
Brunswick Estuary Profile (Southern Area) D.O. (mg/1) and
(% Saturation) (Hydrographic Survey)
43
Northern Sampling Area Temperature Profile (°C) at Low
Tide during July
44
Northern Sampling Area Salinity Profile ( 0 /oo) at Low
Tide during July
45
Northern Sampling Area D.O. Profile (mg/1) and (% Saturation)
at Low Tide during July
46
7.
8.
9.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
111
Figure
19.
20.
21.
22.
Northern Sampling Area NH4-N
during July
(~g/1)
Profile at Low Tide
47
Northern Sampling Area Temperature (°C) Profile at High
Tide during July
48
Northern Sampling Area Salinity ( 0 /oo) Profile at High
Tide during July
49
Northern Sampling Area D.O. (rng/1) and (% Saturation)
Profile at High Tide during July
SO
(~g/1)
23.
Northern Sampling Area NH4-N
during July
24.
Southern Sampling Area Temperature (°C) Profile at Low
Tide during July
52
Southern Sampling Area Salinity ( 0 /oo) Profile at Low
Tide during July
53
Southern Sampling Area D.O. Profile (mg/1) and (% Saturation)
at Low Tide during July
54
Southern Sampling Area NH4 -N
during July
55
25.
26.
27.
28 .
(~g/1)
Profile at High Tide
51
Profile at Low Tide
Southern Sampling Area Temperature (°C) Profile at High
Tide during July
56
29.
Southern Sampling Area Salinity ( 0 /oo) Profile at High
Tide during July
57
30.
Southern Sampling Area D.O. Profile (mg/1) and (% Saturation)
at High Tide during July
58
Southern Sampling Area NH4-N
during July
59
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
(~g/1)
Profile at High Tide
Northern Sampling Area Temperature (°C) Profile at Low
Tide during August
60
Northern Sampling Area Salinity ( 0 /oo) Profile at Low
Tide during August
61
Northern Sampling Area D.O. (rng/1) and (% Saturation)
Profile at Low Tide during August
62
Northern Sampling Area NH4-N
during August
63
(~g/1)
iv
Profile at Low Tide
Figure
36.
37.
38.
Northern Sampling Area Temperature (°C) Profile at
High Tide during August
64
Northern Sampling Area Salinity ( 0 /
Tide during August
65
00 )
Profile at High
Northern Sampling Area D.O. Profile (mg/1) and
(% Saturation) at High Tide during August
66
39.
Northern Sampling Area NH4-N
during August
67
40 .
Southern Sampling Area Temperature (°C) Profile at Low
Tide during August
68
Southern Sampling Area· Salinity ( 0 /
Tide during August
69
41.
(~g/1)
Profile at High Tide
00 )
Profile at Low
42.
Southern Sampling Area D.O. Profile (mg/1) and (% Saturation)
at Low Tide during August
43.
Southern Sampling Area NH4-N
during August
44.
(~g/1)
70
Profile at Low Tide
71
Southern Sampling Area Temperature (°C) Profile at High
Tide during August
72
Southern Sampling Area Salinity ( 0 /oa) Profile at High
Tide during Agust
73
46.
Southern Sampling Area D.O. Profile (mg/1) and (% Saturation)
at High Tide during August
74
47.
Southern Sampling Area NH4 -N
during August
75
45.
(~g/1)
v
Profile at High Tide
LIST OF TABLES
Tables
1.
Microbiological Levels of the Duplin River, Initial Hydrographic Survey
76
Microbiological Levels of Shellbluff Creek, Initial Hydrographic Survey
77
Microbiological Levels of Cedar Creek, Initial Hydrographic
Survey
78
Microbiological Levels of the Brunswick Estuary, Initial
Hydrographic Survey
79
Chemical Analyses of Packing House and Processing Plant
Effluents
80
Physical Analyses of Packing House and Processing Plant
Effluents
81
Microbiological Analyses of Packing House and Processing
Plant Effluents
82
Microbiological Levels, Northern Sampling Area at Low
Tide during July
83
Chemical Parameters, Northern Sampling Area at Low Tide
during July
84
Microbiological Levels, Northern Sampling Area at High
Tide during July
85
Chemical Parameters, Northern Sampling Area at High Tide
during July
86
12.
Microbiological Levels, Southern Sampling Area at Low
Tide dur:ing July
87
13.
Chemical Parameters, Southern Sampling Area at Low
Tide during July
88
14. Microbiological Levels, Southern Sampling Area at High
Tide during July
89
2.
3.
4.
S.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
15.
Chemical Parameters, Southern Sampling Area at High Tide
during July
16. Microbiological Levels, Northern Sampling Area at Low
Tide during August
Vl
90
91
Table
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29 .
Page
Chemical Parameters, Northern Sampling Area at Low
Tide during August
92
Microbiological Levels, Northern Sampling Area at High
Tide during August
93
Chemical Parameters, Northern, Sampling Area at High
Tide during August
94
Microbiological Levels, Southern Sampling Area at Low
Tide during August
95
Chemical Parameters, Southern Sampling Area at Low Tide
during August
96
Microbiological Levels, Southern Sampling Area at High
Tide during August
97
Chemical Parameters, Southern Sampling Area at High
Tide during August
98
Rainfall in Inches at McKinnon Airport, St. Simons Island,
June 20, 1980 thru August 31, 1980
99
Mean Chemical and Microbiological Parameters of the Packing
House Effluent, Immediate Receiving Waters, and Estuarine
Stations Up and Downstream from the Discharge Point (August,
High Tide)
100
Mean Chemical and Microbiological Parameters of the Processing Plant Effluent, Immediate Receiving Waters , and
Estuarine Stations One Half Mile Up and Downstream from the
Discharge Point (July, High Tide)
101
Mean Chemical and Microbiological Parameters of the Processing Plant Effluent, Immediate Receiving Waters, and
Estuarine Stations One Half Mile Up and Downstream from
the Discharge Point (July, Low Tide)
10 2
Mean Chemical and Microbiological Parameters of the Processing Plant Effluent, Immediate Receiving Waters, and
Estuarine Stations One Half Mile Up and Downstream from
the Discharge Point (August, High Tide)
103
Mean Chemical and Microbiological Parameters of the Processing Plant Effluent, Immediate Receiving Waters, and
Estuarine Stations One Half Mile Up and Downstream from
the Discharge Point (August, Low Tide)
104
vii
Table
30.
31.
Calculated Maximum and Minlim..nn NH3 (\.lg/1) Levels Surface
and Bottom, Northern Sampling Area
105
Calculated Maxlinum and Minimum NH3 (J.lg/1) Levels Surface
and Bottom, Southern Sampling Area
106
viii
Table
30.
31.
Calculated Maximum and Minlim..nn NH3 (\.lg/1) Levels Surface
and Bottom, Northern Sampling Area
105
Calculated Maxlinum and Minimum NH3 (J.lg/1) Levels Surface
and Bottom, Southern Sampling Area
106
viii
INTROOOCTI ON
A study to determine the impact of seafood packing and processing
effluents discharged to Georgia's estuarine waters was conducted during
July and August of 1979 (Figure 1). The study concerned the effects
of effluents on two estuarine systems:
(i)
(ii)
a relatively undeveloped area consisting of three small
estuarine creeks, two of which are normally exposed to
seafood packing by-products (Figure 2).
a large commercially and industrially developed estuary that
receives effluents fran a seafood processing plant and three
packing houses (Figure 3).
Fishing boats unload their catches at packing houses, where the
seafood is washed, sorted, packed in ice, and held for shipment to
wholesale and retail outlets and seafood processing plants. Most fresh
products are shipped on ice with little further processing. Shrimp
are normally headed at sea if time permits, but during the peak harvesting periods, at least part of the catch is brought in to be headed at
the packing houses. A typical packing house employs up to 20 people,
handles 1,000 to 1,500 pounds of shrimp per day (of which 60% to 70%
are headed at sea), and discharges from 1,500 to 9,000 gallons of
effluent (Scott et al.,l978). Seafood processing plants are much larger
operations, employing several hundred workers to manufacture cooked,
breaded, and frozen products. In contrast to packing operations, seafood
processing plants utilize between 10,000 and 30,000 pounds of shrimp
and generate from 100,000 to 300,000 gallons of effluent per day (Scott
et al. ,1978).
Although 1979 was a good shrimping year, most of Georgia's summer
harvest was headed at sea, resulting in little or no activity at the
packing houses (Wise and Thompson 1977). During the project, the only
known seafood effluent discharged into the undeveloped estuary resulted
from the heading of a boatload of rock shrimp at one packing house.
However, in July and August the processing plant discharged into the
developed estuary approximately 215,000 gallons of effluent per day
from shrimp thawing, peeling, sorting, and cleaning operations. The
effluent passed through a hydroseive screen which removed shr~p hulls
and other solids larger than 0,02 inches in diameter. Wash-down water,
domestic sewage, and any breading remaining after dry clean-up were
discharged to the municipal sewage plant.
l
2
MATERIALS AND ME'IHODS
The following chemical and biological parameters were determined
for estuarine water and processing discharge samples collected during
the study:
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g)
(h)
(i)
(j)
(k)
(1)
Temperature measurements for surface and bottom estuarine
waters and effluent samples were made using a three-liter
plastic Van Darn bottle equipped with a mercury thermometer.
Surface, bottom, and effluent salinities were determined
with an American Optical hand-held refractometer.
pH readings of surface, bottom, and effluent samples were
made with a digital pH meter (Association of Official
Analytical Chemists ,l975).
Winkler titrations (American Public Health Association,l976)
(U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,l976) were used to
measure in situ dissolved oxygen levels of surface, bottom,
and effluent samples.
The nephelometric method (American Public Health Association,
1976) (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,l976) was used
to measure turbidities of surface, bottom and effluent samples.
Ammonia nitrogen values were determined spectrophotometrically
for surface, bottom, and effluent samples (Martin,l97Z).
Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD) determinations were completed
for surface, bottom, and effluent samples (American Public
Health Association,l976) (Houser,1965) (U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency,l976).
MPN total coliform populations were ascertained for surface
and effluent samples (American Public Health Association,l976).
MPN fecal coliform levels were monitored for surface and
effluent samples (American Public Health Association, 1976).
Total aerobic plate counts incubated at zoe for 7 days and
3Se for 48 hours were completed for surface and effluent
samples (American Public Health Association,1976) (Food and
Drug Adrninistration,l978).
Marine agar plate counts from surface and effluent water
samples were incubated at ZOe for 7 days (Schleper,l972).
Rainfall data was obtained from the Federal Aviation Administration, Aviation Weather and Pilot Briefing Section,
McKinnon Airport, St. Simons Island, throughout the study.
Based on preliminary hydrographic data (temperature, salinity, and
dissolved oxygen profiles) and surface microbiological concentrations,
eight sampling stations in the northern less developed estuary (including
two control stations) and seven stations in the southern industrially
developed estuary (including one control station) were chosen for the
study. Subsequently, the stations and a representative sample of dis charged seafood effluent were monitored at high and low tide on a total
of four occasions in July and August of 1979.
3
The data was analyzed by s ingle and multiple analyses of variance
to determine any significant differences (0.05 level) between effluents
and receiving waters, stations within an area, and differences between
the northern and southern sampling areas (Remington and Shork,l970)
(Schefler, 1969) .
SAMPLE SITE SELECTION
Four estuarine sampling sites (three relatively undeveloped estuarine
rivers between Deboy Sound and Sapelo Sound on Georgia's central coast,
and one large commercially and industrially developed estuary that drains
the area around Brunswick, Georgia ) were chosen for the study (Figure
1) . The undeveloped northern sampling area (Figure 2) included the
Duplin River, Shellbluff Creek, and Cedar Creek. The developed southern
sampling area (Figure 3) encompassed three portions of the Brunswick
Estuary, St. Simons Sound, the Brunswick River, and the Brunswick East
River.
Surface to bottom temperature, salinity, and dissolved oxygen profiles, and surface MPN total coliform populations, MPN fecal coliform
populations, marine agar plate counts (at 20C), and total aerobic plate
counts (at 20C and 35C) were determined for stations between the mouths
of the four estuarine systems and the ends of their navigable waters
(American Public Health Association,l976) (Food and Drug Administration,
1978) (Schleper,l972) (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,l976).
Five stations in the Duplin River, four stations in Shellbluff Creek,
five stations in Cedar Creek, and ten stations in the Brunswick
Estuary were profiled. Results from the initial hydrographic and
bacteriological investigations were evaluated to determine station
locations that were monitored during the remainder of the study :
(a)
The Duplin River, designated the control estuary, is approximately five miles long and drains the western portion of
Sapelo Island. No seafood processing establishments are
located along this river, which drains a state refuge with
little domestic or commercial development. Temperature
(Figure 4), salinity (Figure 5), and dissolved oxygen
(Figure 6) profiles indicate a well-mixed system, surface
to bottom, with the greatest horizontal gradient for all
three parameters between the mouth of Barn Creek and a large
mound of sawdus t 1.5 miles upstream from Barn Creek (Figure
2) . Sapelo Dock, at Marsh Landing, and the mouth of Barn
Creek (1.5 miles ups tream from Sapelo Dock) had the lowest
microbiological populations (Table 1) with MPN total coliform
values of 7.5 organisms/100 ml and 9.3 organisms/100 ml,
respectively. Surface and bottom water samples were collected
from stations at Sapelo Dock and Barn Creek for the remainder
of the study.
4
(b)
Shellbluff Creek, with discharges from two seafood packing
houses and several private homes, is a 0.75-mile-long waterway situated approximately 4.5 miles northwest of the mouth
of the Duplin River (Figure 2). Four stations were chosen
for the first microbiological and hydrographic survey. Temperature (Figure 7) and salinity (Figure 8) data revealed an
estuary that was well mixed horizontally and vertically, with
gradual reductions in dissolved oxygen concentrations
(Figure 9) moving upstream and below three meters. MPN fecal
coliforms reached a maximum of 24 organisms/100 ml at the
packing house station and at the bend approximately 500 yards
upstream from the packing houses, while MPN total coliform
values peaked at the telephone pole 0.25 miles west of Marker
"162" (Table 2). Three sample stations (i) at the mouth of
the creek (Marker "162"), (ii) at the center of the creek
(0.75 mile upstream from the first station) next to the
packing houses, and (iii) at the bend above the packing house
(500 yards at a heading of 96°), were chosen. Surface and
bottom water samples were collected at each station.
(c) Cedar Creek, one mile long and one mile north of Shellbluff
Creek (Figure 2), is the most developed estuary in the
northern area, with numerous private dwellings, a crab plant
that discharges into an oxidation pond, and one packing
house that discharges directly into the creek. Preliminary
sampling of five stations on Cedar Creek revealed a well mixed
estuary with little horizontal or vertical variation in
temperature (Figure 10), salinity (Figure 11), or dissolved
oxygen (Figure 12). MPN total coliform and MPN fecal
coliform populations were greatest at the old wrecked boat
(0.25 mile upstream from the creek's mouth) and between the
crab plant and the packing house (Table 3). Three stations
were selected for routine monitoring of surface and bottom
water quality: (i) at the mouth of the creek, (ii) 750 yards
upstream from the mouth between the crab plant and the packing
house, and (iii) 800 yards from the second station at a
heading of 327°.
(d) The portion of the Brunswick estuarine system monitored during
the study (approximately 7.5 miles) included the Brunswick
East River, the Brunswick River, and St. Simons Sound
(Figure 3). The estuary receives industrial and domestic
wastes from Brunswick and its surrounding areas, including
the effluent from thawing, peeling, sorting, and cleaning
operations of a major seafood processing plant discharging
into the Brunswick River, and during normal shrimping years,
the discharges from the heading tables of three packing houses.
Ten preliminary stations were sampled to determine temperature
(Figure 13), salinity (Figure 14), and dissolved oxygen
(Figure 15) profiles and surface microbiological levels
(Table 4). The estuary is well mixed with little vertical
or horizontal temperature differential. There is no evidence
of vertical salinity stratification; however, a horizontal
5
gradient exists, showing a gradual decrease in salinity moving
shoreward of Marker "19." Dissolved oxygen values were high
and well mixed vertically, seaward of the East River Range
Marker and "K" Street. The most rapid surface to bottom
decrease in oxygen concentrations occurred at the two most
inland stations, "K" Street and the end of the East River.
Fecal coliform populations reached their highest levels inland
of the Range Marker, and were indicative of sanitary sewage
contamination discovered during an earlier unpublished microbiological and chemical survey. Surface and bottom water
samples were regularly collected from seven stations in the
southern area:
(1) Marker "19," located between the southern end of St.
Simons Island and the northern end of Jekyll Island
served as the control station for the southern area
(5.75 miles downstream from the seafood processing
plant and 7 miles from the packing houses).
(2) Marker "24,'' located in the Brunswick River southeast
of Brunswick Point, which also served as a station
(2.75 miles downstream from the processing plant
and 4 miles from the packing houses) monitored monthly
from September 1973 for the Brunswick Junior College
estuarine water quality study (Brunswick Junior College,
1975) (Brunswick Junior College,l976) (Brunswick Junior
College, 1977) .
(3) The central span of the Sidney Lanier Bridge in the
Brunswick River 1.75 miles downstream from the seafood
packing houses and 0.5 mile downstream from the processing
plant discharge.
(4) Brunswick River 350 yards, at a heading of 113° from
Marker "26," within 100 feet of the submerged discharge
pipe from the seafood processing plant.
(5) East River State Docks at the foot of Fourth Avenue,
approximately 0.5 mile downstream from the packing
houses, the site of another Brunswick Junior College
sampling station monitored since 1975 (Brunswick Junior
College,l975) (Brunswick Junior College,l976) (Brunswick
Junior Colleg~ 1977).
(6) East River at the foot of Prince Street, centered between
three packing houses.
(7) The East River range markers located between Prince and
"K" Streets.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Data Collection and Treatment
The water qual1ty 1n the northern (undeveloped estuary) and southern
(developed estuary) areas was assessed at high and low tides to determine
6
the effects of processing and packing effluents on monitored environmental
parameters at the extremes of the tidal cycles. The field study, conducted
during the summer of 1979, was completed during a period of reduced shrimp
landings. Most harvested shrimp were headed at sea, which resulted in
little or no activity at the packing houses. The only effluent sample
collected from an operational packing house was taken in the northern
sampling area at Shellbluff Creek (Figure 2). The grab sample was collected
during the heading of approximately 1,000 pounds of rock shrimp from a
single boat. A large seafood processing plant discharged a daily average
of 215,000 gallons of effluent into the Brunswick River (southern area)
from thawing, peeling, cleaning, and sorting operations (Figure 3). Four
twenty-four hour composite samples were collected concurrent with estuarine
sampling in July and August to characterize the chemical composition of
the effluent (Table 5). Four grab samples were taken on the same days to
assess the physical and microbiological parameters of the discharge
(Tables 6, 7).
Microbiological levels and chemical parameters determined for each
estuarine station sampled during July and August at high and low tides in
the undeveloped and developed areas are listed in Tables 8-23. Rainfall
data is presented in Table 24. Temperature, salinity, dissolved oxygen,
and ammonia nitrogen profiles for each estuarine sampling run are presented in Figures 16-47.
One-and two-way analyses of variance were used to assess significant
differences (P < 0.05) in chemical and microbiological parameters determined during the study (Remington and Sherk 1970) (Schefler 1969). The
statistical relationships between stations, within sample areas, between
the northern and southern sample areas , and between effluent and receiving
waters were examined. Additionally, influences of tidal stages and tidal
interaction with other parameters were explored.
Control Stations
Analysis of variance of chemical and microbiological data collected
at the two control sites in the undeveloped northern area (Sapelo Dock
and Barn Creek on the Duplin River, Figure 2) and similar data collected
at the single control station in the developed southern area (Marker "19"
on St. Simons Sound, Figure 3) revealed few significant differences
between the control stations. At low tide, the mean northern area marine
agar plate count (4.47 x 103 organisms/ml) was significantly greater
(P < 0.01) than the mean southern station plate count (1.99 x 103
organisms/ml). At high tide, the mean aerobic plate counts at zoe and
3SC were significantly greater (P < 0.01 and P < 0.05, respectively) in
the northern sampling area (mean values of 380 and 199 organisms/ml)
than those found in the southern sampling area (mean value of 166 and 126
organisms/ml). Although the reported microbiological levels in the
northern control area were s ignificantly greater than the values determined
for the southern control station, the differences of less than one order
of magnitude would have little impact on the environmental quality of the
7
undeveloped northern area. Mean high tide surface (6.13 mg/1) and
bottom (6.38 mg/1) dissolved oxygen values at the southern area control
station were significantly greater (P < 0.01) than the mean oxygen levels
of the northern area control stations (5.27 mg/1 surface and 4.99 mg/1
bottom). A similar pattern was exhibited for bottom waters at low tide
with a southern mean of 5.22 mg/1 and a northern mean of 4.45 mg/1
(P < 0.05). The southern control station's proximity to the open ocean
permits a greater exchange of oxygenated ocean water (Figure 3) than the
northern control stations (Figure 2). Oxygen transfer is enhanced by
rapid currents in the 17.5~eter channel of the southern area, compared
with the shallower 7-meter entrance to the Duplin River. Significantly
higher surface and bottom dissolved oxygen values at high tide indicate
increased water exchange with oxygenated high-salinity ocean water, while
significantly higher bottom oxygen levels at low tide reflect salt wedge
intrusion along the bottom of St. Simons Soillld. A significantly lower
(P < 0.05) mean bottom oxygen saturation value of 75% at high tide for the
Duplin River, compared with 97% saturation at Marker "19" (southern area),
reflects poor water exchange across the shallow sill at the mouth of the
river. At high tide, a mean bottom BOD value of 1.55 mg/1 for the northern
control station was significantly greater than the southern load of
0.91 mg/1, and is an additional indication of poor transfer and dilution
across the Duplin River sill. The mean surface suspended solids load
at the southern control station is significantly greater at low tide
(208 mg/1, P < 0.01) and at high tide (115 mg/1, P < 0.05) than the
northern concentrations of 73 mg/1 and 74 mg/1, respectively.
Comparison of the northern and southern control stations discloses
several differences that must be factored into any conclusion about the
impact of seafood processing and packing wastes on the estuarine systems
examined during the study. Water exchange, specifically oxygenation, is
not as rapid or complete in the shallow undeveloped northern systems as
it is in the developed Brunswick River estuary. The natural BOD load of
the bottom waters in the northern area is greater than that of the
southern area. The southern area surface particulate load is higher;
however, the percent organic composition would appear to be lower than
that of the northern area, as evidenced by reduced or equivalent BOD
loads for southern waters.
Experimental Stations
TWo-way analys1s of variance was used to determine any significant
differences between the six undeveloped northern experimental stations
and the six developed southern stations for each of the chemical and
microbiological parameters monitored by the study. Stations were considered fixed factors (row values), and tidal stage was considered a
random factor (column values), giving the following degree of freedom
ratios: (i) Rows MR/Mr, (ii) Columns McfMw, and (iii) Interaction
Mr/Mw (Remington and Shork,1970). The mean aerobic plate count (20C) for
all experimental stations in the southern area (1.10 x 103 organisms/ml)
was significantly greater (P < 0.01) than the mean count in the northern
area (530 organisms/m1). There was no significant difference between
8
tidal stages; however, a significant (P < 0.01) synergistic interaction
between the tidal stage and sampling area was determined. Aerobic plate
counts at 3SC exhibited the same relationship, with a southern mean of
1.26 x 103 organisms/ml and a northern mean of 350 organisms/ml (P < 0.01,
interaction P < 0.01). As with the control stations, the southern mean
surface (4.85 mg/1) and bottom (4.33 mg/1) dissolved oxygen values were
significantly higher (P < 0.01) than the southern surface (4.15 mg/1) and
bottom (3.76 mg/1) measurements. No significant tidal differences or
interactions were determined. Percent oxygen saturation followed the
same pattern, with a mean southern surface value of 73%, a bottom value
of 65%, and northern values of 65% and 61%, respectively (P < 0.01). No
significant differences or interactions were exhibited. Mean northern
surface total suspended solids concentrations (78 mg/1) were significantly
greater (P < 0.01) than the southern values (66 mg/1). No significant
interaction or tidal differences were noted. Southern mean surface (7.70)
and bottom (7.66) pH levels were significantly greater (P < 0.01) than
the northern values of 7.47 and 7.45, respectively. Significant tidal
differences or interactions were not indicated. Mean NH4 levels of the
southern experimental station (170 mg/1) were significantly greater
(P < 0.01) for bottom waters than detected levels in the northern area
(61 mg/1). No significant tidal differences were determined. The analysis
of variance table indicated that a significant interaction (P < 0.01)
existed between tidal stage and sampling area; however, the nature of the
interaction could not be determined.
The differences in the northern (undeveloped) and southern (developed)
experimental station were similar in many respects to the results obtained
from the control stations. Dissolved oxygen and oxygen saturation levels
were higher in both surface and bottom waters collected from the southern
experimental stations, indicating more efficient water exchange in the
portion of Brunswick River estuarine system surveyed. Total aerobic
plate counts (at zoe and 35C) were greater in the southern experimental
area which reflects the commercial and industrial development of the
Brunswick River estuarine system. NH4 ~ levels in the bottom waters of
the southern estuary were elevated. The mean pH of northern surface and
bottom experimental waters was less than the pH values in the south,
which could result from the leaching of humic acids, tannins, and
lignins from marsh vegetation and soil and reduced mixing with oceanic
water (mean pH 8.1 ± 0.2) (Martin,1970). The mean pH values in the
northern and southern areas are within the optimum values required by
most estuarine organisms and fall within the range (pH of 7.5 - 7.9)
considered normal for Georgia's estuaries (Stickney and Miller,l973).
Northern Area Experimental and Control Stations
Total water column env1ronmental data collected at the two control
stations and at the six experimental stations in the northern area were
examined by two-way analysis of variance, with high and low tidal samples
considered random variables, to ascertain any significant differences
between stations. A low tide mean aerobic plate count (20C) of 290
organisms/ml was significantly less (P < 0.01) than the mean high tide
9
population of 790 organisms/mi. No significant differences between
stations or tidal interactioiEwere detected. The mean aerobic plate
count (35C) at low tide (212 organisms/ml) was significantly less
(P < 0.01) than the mean number of microorganisms determined at high tide
(499 organisms/ml). A significant difference (P < 0.01) in total aerobic
plate count (35C) within the undeveloped northern sample area was determined for the following mean station values:
Main Dock Sapelo (Duplin River)
Mouth of Shellbluff Creek ("162")
Cedar Creek (Mouth)
Duplin River (Barn Creek)
Cedar Creek (Packing House/Crab Plant)
Shellbluff Creek (Packing House)
Cedar Creek (Last Dock)
Shellbluff Creek (Bend above Packing House)
153
253
282
309
325
376
421
473
org/ml
org/ml
org/ml
org/ml
org/ml
org/ml
org/ml
org/ml
A significant tidal interaction (P < 0.01) was detected. Although the
number of microorganisms enumerated was relatively small, a definite
pattern was apparent. Those stations upstream from the packing houses,
the last dock on Cedar Creek, and the bend above the packing house on
Shellbluff Creek indicated a synergistic tidal effect that results in
the upstream concentration of microbial numbers during high tides.
The mean marine agar plate count (ZOC) at high tide (8.93 x 103
organisms/ml) was significantly greater (P <0.05) than the mean count
at low tide (6.15 x 103 organisms/ml) The difference in mean marine
plate counts (20C) at the following undeveloped northern sampling stations
was significant (P < 0.01):
Main Dock Sapelo (Duplin River)
Duplin River (Barn Creek)
Mouth of Shellbluff Creek ("162")
Cedar Creek (Mouth)
Cedar Creek (Last Dock)
Cedar Creek (Packing House/Crab Plant)
Shellbluff Creek (Packing House)
Shellbluff Creek (Bend above Packing
House)
3.42
6.20
7.33
7.50
7.53
8 . 20
8.51
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
103
103
103
103
103
103
103
org/ml
org/ml
org/ml
org/ml
org/m1
org/ml
org/ml
1.88 x 103 org/ml
No tidal interactions were evident. As with the aerobic plate coonts, the
mean marine agar organisms reached a maximum at high tide. The packing
house station and the stations upstream from them again had the highest
microbial populations. Total MPN coliforrns indicated a significant but
undefined interaction (P < 0.05) between tidal stage and station location,
but no significant differences between stations and tidal stage.
A significant increase (P < 0.01) in the mean dissolved oxygen
content of northern stations'waters at high tide (4.36 mg/1) was noted
when compared with low tide concentrations (4.03 mg/1). The following
10
mean dissolved oxygen values at the eight undeveloped northern stations
were significantly different (P < 0.01):
Shellbluff Creek (Bend above Packing House)
Cedar Creek (Last Dock)
Cedar Creek (Mouth)
Cedar Creek (Packing House/Crab Plant)
Shellbluff Creek (Packing House)
Mouth of Shellbluff Creek ("162")
Duplin River (Barn Creek)
Main Dock Sapelo (Duplin River)
3.54
3.70
3.97
3.99
4.21
4.30
4.77
5.10
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
No s ignif icant tidal interactions were determined. The stations farthest
upstream on Shellbluff Creek (3.54 mg/1) and Cedar Creek (3.70 mg/1)
exhibited the lowest dissolved oxygen levels and the poorest water quality,
as was the case for the microbiological parameters. Three of the four
lowest oxygen values were recorded in Cedar Creek, the most developed
northern estuary. The two control stations displayed the best water
quality, while the packing house stations exhibited intermediate to low
water quality.
Percent dissolved oxygen saturation was significantly greater
(P < 0.05) at high tide (65%) than at low tide (59%). Mean percent dissolved oxygen saturation differed significantly (P < 0.01) for the eight
undeveloped northern stations:
Shellbluff Creek (Bend above Packing House)
Shellbluff Creek (Packing House)
Cedar Creek (Last Dock)
Cedar Creek (Mouth)
Cedar Creek (Packing House/Crab Plant)
Mouth of Shellbluff Creek ("162")
Duplin River (Barn Creek)
Main Dock Sapelo (Duplin River)
53%
53%
55%
60%
60%
65%
74%
78%
There were no significant tidal interactions. Percent oxygen saturation
means followed a pattern similar to dissolved oxygen values, with the
poorest water quality exhibited at the ends of the creeks, near the
packing houses, and at the mouth of Cedar Creek.
Mean high tide pH readings (7.56) were significantly greater
(P < 0.01) than low tide readings (7.45). A significant difference
(P < 0.01) was determined for the mean pH values recorded from the
northern area stations:
Cedar Creek (Last Dock)
Cedar Creek (Packing House/Crab Plant)
Shellbluff Creek (Packing House)
Shellbluff Creek (Bend above Packing House)
7.29
7.42
7.44
7.48
11
Cedar Creek (Mouth)
Shellbluff Creek (Mouth)
Duplin River (Barn Creek)
Main Dock Sapelo (Duplin River)
7.49
7.58
7.64
7. 71
The trend exhibited by other significantly different chemical parameters
was repeated with pH; the lowest levels were determined at the upstream
stations on Cedar and Shellbluff Creeks and at the packing house stations.
Higher pH values, approaching oceanic, were recorded at the Duplin River
stations.
The observed pH appears to be directly related to the dynamic
balance between the degree of oceanic mixing and the leaching of acidic
marsh components.
During the survey (a period of little or no packing house activity
in the northern area), all significantly different parameters monitored
in the northern area increased at high tide. Increased aerobic plate
counts (at 20C and 35C) and marine agar plate counts (20C) at high tide
indicate transport of a wide variety of microorganisms from higher
salinity areas outside the study area. The law levels of microorganisms
involved are indicative of a clean environment. Although there were no
significant differences between the MPN coliform values determined during
the study, a median value of 24 total coliforrn/100 ml (with< 10% of the
samples > 230 total coliforrns/100 ml) classifies the location as a suitable shellfish growing area (Houser, 1965). Predictably, dissolved oxygen
levels, percent oxygen saturation, and pH increased with the mixing of
incoming oceanic waters at high tide. The comparison of individual
stations revealed the poorest water quality for microbiological as well
as chemical parameters at the packing house stations and at the stations
upstream from the packing houses in Cedar and Shellbluff Creeks. Both
creeks have shallow (1.5 to 3 meters deep) sills just beyond their
entrances, followed by deeper pools next to the packing houses. Both
features reduce the effectiveness of tidal mixing and increase the
possibility of stagnation and nutrient concentration in the creeks.
Southern Area Experimental and Control Stations
The stat1st1cal treatment of the env1ronrnental data collected at
the seven southern area stations, comparing station to station, was the
same as that carried aut for the northern area. The mean aerobic plate
counts (20C) listed below for the seven developed southern sampling
stations were significantly different (P < 0.01):
Marker "19"
Sidney Lanier Bridge
Range Marker East River
Marker "24"
Fourth Avenue East River
Prince Street East River
Discharge Pipe, Seafood
Processing plant
202
569
694
750
1.28 x 103
1.51 x 103
org/ml
org/ml
org/ml
org/ml
org/ml
org/ml
3.07 x 103 org/ml
12
No significant difference between high and low tides was determined;
however, a significant but undefined interaction (P < 0.01) between
tidal stage and station was noted. The greatest mean populations of
aerobic plate count organisms (20C) were within 100 feet of the processing
plant discharge pipe, at a station 0.5 mile upstream from the pipe, the
site of a large commercial dock at the foot of Fourth Avenue, and at
Prince Street, which is centered between the idle packing houses.
The mean low tide aerobic plate count (35C) population (1.99 x 10 3
org/ml) was significantly greater (P < 0.01) than the mean high tide
population (494 org/ml) for all seven southern stations. Significant
differences (P < 0.05) were indicated between mean 3SC plate counts:
Marker "19"
Range Marker East River
Marker "24"
Sidney Lanier Bridge
Prince Street East River
Fourth Avenue East River
Discharge Pipe, Seafood
Processing Plant
238
761
770
891
1.50 x 103
1.65 x 103
org/ml
org/ml
org/ml
org/ml
org/ml
org/ml
3.08 x 10 3 org/ml
No significant tidal interactions were detected. Aerobic plate counts
(35C) indicated microbial distribution patterns that were similar to
samples incubated at zoe with maxlirrum populations at the processing plant
discharge pipe, followed by Fourth Avenue, and Prince Street. The
fewest plate count organisms were determined for the two most seaward
stations, Marker "19" and "24," and for the most inland station, the
East River Range Marker.
(P
<
The distribution of MPN total coliforms was significantly different
0.01) within the seven developed southern sampling stations:
Marker "19"
Marker "24"
Sidney Lanier Bridge
Fourth Avenue East River
Prince Street East River
Range Marker East River
Discharge Pipe, Seafood
Processing Plant
1.3
7.9
9.9
21.5
179.5
223.3
org/100
org/100
org/100
org/100
org/100
org/100
ml
ml
ml
ml
m1
ml
1.91 x 103 org/100 ml
No significant tidal differences or interactions were determined. The
seafood processing plant discharge point had the highest microbial load.
The remaining stations followed a simple dilution pattern, with a reduction in total MPN coliform counts moving seaward from the end of the
East River.
13
Mean dissolved oxygen concentrations were significantly greater
(P < 0.01) at high tide (5.05 mg/1) than at low tide (4.45 mg/1). A
significant difference (P < 0.01) was determined for the dissolved oxygen
values at the seven southern stations:
Range Marker East River
Prince Street East River
Discharge Pipe, Seafood
Processing Plant
Sidney Lanier Bridge
Fourth Avenue East River
Marker "24"
Marker "19"
4.16 mg/1
4.23 mg/1
4.46
4. 71
4.78
5.18
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
5. 71 mg/1
There was a significant interaction (P < 0.05) that produced a synergistic
effect between tidal stage and dissolved oxygen concentrations at the
monitored stations. Oxygen concentrations generally increased at more
seaward stations and at high tide, as would be expected with greater
mixing of oceanic waters. The exception was the seafood processing plant
discharge point, which had lower dissolved oxygen values than would be
anticipated by its relative seaward position.
Mean percent oxygen saturation followed a similar pattern with a
significant increase (P < 0.01) at high tide (76%) over low tide (68%).
Station saturation values differed significantly (P < 0.05):
Range Marker East River
Prince Street East River
Discharge Pipe, Seafood
Processing Plant
Sidney Lanier Bridge
Fourth Avenue East River
Marker "24"
Marker "19"
63%
64%
69%
71%
73%
78%
87%
Percent oxygen saturation values displayed no tidal interaction; however,
the relative saturation values at each station followed the same pattern
exhibited by the dissolved oxygen values. Although no significant
differences were determined between tidal or station BOD loads, a significant but undefined interaction (P < 0.05) was shown between mean low
tide (1.72 mg/1), high tide (1.15 mg/1), and station levels.
A significant difference (P < 0.05) was determined for pH values
reported for the seven southern stations:
Discharge Pipe, Seafood
Processing Plant
Sidney Lanier Bridge
Fourth Avenue East River
7. 62
7.64
7.65
14
Prince Street East River
Range Marker East River
Marker "24"
Marker "19"
7.69
7. 71
7. 77
7.85
No significant tidal differences or interactions were detected for pH.
Environmental parameters monitored in the southern developed area
were less affected by tidal stage than those in the northern area.
Aerobic plate counts (35C) were significantly greater at low tide than
at high tide. Dissolved oxygen and percent oxygen saturation values
followed the pattern established in the northern area with increased
levels determined during high tides. The largest microbial populations
were encountered at the seafood processing plant discharge pipe, with
mean aerobic plate counts of 3.07 x 103 org/ml (20C) and 3.08 x 103
org/ml (35C) and MPN total coliform counts of 1.91 x 103 org/100 ml.
The highest quality water was found at the two most seaward stations,
Markers "19" and "24." The remainder of the stations appeared to adopt
a simple dilution pattern, increasing microbiological quality with seaward movement. Dissolved oxygen and percent oxygen saturation values
generally increased seaward of the East River Range Marker, with the
exception of the reduced readings at the seafood processing plant discharge
point. The lowest mean pH value was recorded at the seafood processing
plant discharge point, but a value of 7.62 would cause no stress on the
estuarine environment. The southern sampling area appears to be under
greater environmental stress than the northern area; however, a greater
exchange capacity with incoming seawater is apparent. Although the three
packing houses located on the East River were not operating during the
study, the seafood processing plant discharged approximately 215,000
gallons of effluent per day into the Brunswick River, allowing the plant's
impact on the estuary to be monitored.
Northern Packing House Effluent
Orie pack1ng house effluent sample was collected during the study.
The monitored environmental parameters from the sampled effluent produced during the heading of approximately 1,000 pounds of rock shrimp at
the packing house on Shellbluff Creek were compared with the analyses
of surface and bottom receiving waters within fifty feet of the discharge
point (Packing House Station, Shellbluff Creek), 500 yards upstream from
the discharge point (Bend above the Packing House, Shellbluff Creek) and
approximately three-eighfrB of a mile downstream from the discharge point
(Marker "162," Mouth of Shellbluff Creek) by one-way analyses of variance
to quantify the effluent's significant effects on the environment. The
mean effluent and station values for each monitored parameter and any
significant differences are presented in Table 25. An effluent BOD
level of 421 mg/1 was significantly greater (P < 0.01) than the surface
and bottom BOD values for the receiving waters; however, the impact on
the estuary appeared to be minimal. No significant differences were
detected between surface estuarine stations. A bottom BOD value of
15
2.9 mg/1 at the downstream station was significantly greater (P < 0.05)
than the BOD levels at the discharge point (1.9 mg/1) and upstream from
the packing house (2.2 mg/1) . Suspended solids levels in the effluent
(13 mg/1) were significantly less (P < 0.01) than the mean surface and
bottom levels of the receiving waters. The surface and bottom waters
at the downstream station had significantly fewer (P < 0.05 and P < 0.01,
respectively) suspended solids (64.5 mg/1 and 104 mg/1, respectively)
than the other stations. The station at the mouth of Shellbluff Creek
(Marker "162") is downstream from the shallow entrance sill and is
exposed to more water exchange than the two upstream stations, indicating
that the reduced solids load resulted from natural estuarine water exchange and was not associated with the packing house discharge. Discharge NH4 levels (179 ~g/1) were significantly greater (P < 0.01) than
the receiving water levels. The surface station NH4 level at the discharge point (52 ~g/1) was significantly greater (P < 0.05) than the
mean surface NH4 values at the upstream (35 ~g/1) and downstream (27 ~g/1)
stations, the flrst elevated environmental parameter in the receiving
waters. The effect was limited to the discharge point, however. There
was no significant difference between the dissolved oxygen concentrations
of the effluent and surface estuarine waters, but the effluent level
(4.27 mg/1) was significantly greater (P < 0.05) than the dissolved
oxygen levels of the bottom waters. The aerobic plate counts at 20C
showed no significant differences between the effluent and the estuarine
stations or between the stations. The discharge aerobic plate count at
35C (1.35 x 104 org/ml) was significantly greater than the receiving
waters at the discharge point (708 org/ml), the upstream station (759
org/ml),and the downstream station (288 org/ml). There were no significant
differences between the estuarine stations, indicating minnnal impact
from the effluent. The effluent marine agar plate count (20C) was not
significantly different than the receiving waters. The marine agar plate
count at the mouth of the creek, Marker "19" (9.55 x 103 org/ml), was
significantly less (P < 0.01) than the two upstream estuarine stations.
Again, the reduction appeared to be related to estuarine mixing at the
mouth of Shellbluff Creek and not to the packing house discharge.
Although the results from a single packing house effluent sample
form a limited data base, there appeared to be little immediate impact
on Shellbluff Creek. Effluent BOD, NH4, and aerobic plate count loads
(35C) were significantly greater than the receiving waters, but the NH4
level was the only elevated parameter at the packing house discharge
point. The ability of small estuarine creeks to maintain nominal water
quality under sustained packing house operations cannot be determined
from a single sample during a period of packing house inactivity. The
potential for water quality deterioration exists, particularly upstream
from the packing house, an area of reduced water exchange.
Southern Processing Plant Effluent
Four 24-hour composlte and four grab
processing plant effluent during July and
sampling in the southern developed area.
high tide and two at low tide. The plant
samples were collected from the
August, concurrent with estuarine
Two samples were collected at
discharge averaged 215,000
16
gallons per day during the study period. Mean data values and significant
differences were determined from effluent samples and surface and bottom
estuarine samples collected within 100 feet, 0 .5 mile downstream (Sidney
Lanier Bridge), and 0.5 mile upstream (Fourth Avenue East River) from the
discharge pipe; these are presented in Tables 26, 27, 28, and 29.
Effluent BOD loads (means ranged from 255-295 mg/1) were significantly
greater (P < 0.01) than the mean BOD levels of surface and bottom receiving waters at low and high tides (0.67 - 6.41 mg/1). A low tide
surface BOD of 13.00 mg/1 in July and a surface low tide value of 2.19
mg/1 during August at the discharge point were both significantly
greater (P < 0.01) than the respective upstream or downstream stations.
During July, significantly higher BOD loads did not extend to the downstream station at low tide; however, a mean August bottom BOD at the
Sidney Lanier Bridge of 1.75 mg/1 was significantly greater (P < 0.05)
than the discharge point concentrations. A BOD load of 6.41 mg/1
at the bottom of the upstream station (August) was significantly greater
than the two bottom downstream estuarine samples. The high BOD load is
indicative of a BOD source upstream from the Fourth Avenue station or
the entrapment of organic materials in the twelve-meter basin at Fourth
Avenue. Mean bottom low tide BOD levels for the East River at two
stations upstream from Fourth Avenue, Prince Street, and the East River
Range Marker, were between 0.28 mg/1 and 1.19 mg/1 (Tables 13, 21).
Decreased BOD values upstream and downstream from Fourth Avenue support
the probable entrapment of decaying organic materials at the bottom of
Fourth Avenue basin, increasing the st ation's BOD load. The BOD load
from the seafood processing plant could add organic materials to the
basin as the effluent mixed with incoming waters during flood tides. A
July bottom BOD value at the upstream s tation (Fourth Avenue) of 2.67
mg/1, was significantly greater (P < 0.05) than the discharge point or
the downstream station (Sidney Lanier Bridge) levels at high tide. As
in the previous example, the Fourth Avenue basin could be collecting
organic material from the seafood processing plant and/or other sources.
The August BOD' s show no significant differences among the three bottom
estuarine samples, although the surface high tide sample at the downstream station (0.71 mg/1) was significantly less (P < 0.05) than the
other s tations . The decreased BOD reflects mixing of higher quality
oceanic water by flood tides .
Effluent suspended solids collected at low tide during July and
August (120 mg/1 and 98 mg/1, respectively) were significantly greater
(P < 0.01) than solids concentrations in the surface receiving waters
(mean ranged from 41 mg/1 to 93 mg/1) but were significantly less
(P < 0. 05) than the bottom water levels at the July sampling. Bottom
low tide suspended solids levels were significantly higher (P < 0.01)
at the Fourth Avenue station (528 mg/1) in July, while August samples
(79 mg/1) were significantly less (P < 0.05) than the plant discharge
point or the Lanier Bridge. The August effluent suspended solids sample
(80 mg/1) was significantly less (P < 0.01) than the levels recorded
from the bottom receiving waters at high tide. No other significant
differences were determined between the July and August effluent samples
17
and estuarine waters at high tide. July and August high tide surface
suspended solids samples at Fourth Avenue, 29 mg/1 (P < 0.01) and 57 mg/1
(P < 0.05) respectively, were significantly less than the load at the
other estuarine stations. Bottom water from Fourth Avenue had a significantly greater (P < 0.01) solids concentration (633 mg/1) at high tide in
July.
The mean plant discharge NH4 levels were significantly greater
(P < 0.01) (mean range 1616 ~g/1 to 2649 ~g/1) than the estuarine receiving waters for all sampling trials. The August surface high tide (103
~g/1) and low tide (57 ~g/1) NH4 levels at the discharge point were
significantly greater (P < 0.01) than the NH4 concentrations at the next
upstream and downstream stations. The bottom levels at Fourth Avenue,
the upstream station (256 ~g/1), were significantly greater (P < 0.01)
than bottom concentrations at the remaining stations. July samples from
the discharge station had significantly greater (P < 0.01) surface NH4
levels (150 ~g/1) at low tide than the upstream or downstream stations.
The bottom low tide NH4 sample from the Fourth Avenue station (271 ~g/1)
was significantly greater (P < 0.01) than the other estuarine bottom
samples. Again at high tide, the upstream station (688 ~g/1) had significantly greater (P < 0.01) NH 4 concentrations than the discharge point
(420 ~g/1), which in turn had significantly higher levels (P < 0.01) than
the Sidney Lanier Bridge or downstream stations (101 ~g/1). As with the
BOD load and total suspended solids, the Fourth Avenue station appears
to be acting as a trap to collect organic materials that decay in the
station's bottom waters.
Dissolved oxygen levels were significantly greater (P < 0.01) in
the effluent (mean range 5.60 to 7.55 mg/1) than the estuarine waters.
The July low tide bottom value (3.79 mg/1) and the August high tide
surface level (4 . 35 mg/1) at the discharge point were significantly less
(P < 0.01) than the up or downstream stations. The surface high tide
dissolved oxygen concentrations at the downstream station (5.83 mg/1) was
significantly greater (P < 0.05) than the other estuarine stations, indicating increased mixing at the Lanier Bridge. Surface low tide dissolved oxygen levels determined in July and August (4.47 mg/1) at the
downstream station were significantly less (P < 0.05, P < 0.01, respectively) than the upstream stations and may represent an immediate oxygen
uptake by the plant discharge as it flows seaward during ebb tides.
Aerobic plate c~unts (mean range 2.29 x 10S to 5.62 x 10 6 organisms/ml
at 20C and 1.23 x 10 to 1.95 X 106 organisms/ml at 35C) and marine agar
plate counts (mean range 1. 51 x lOS to 4.27 x 106 organisms/ml at ZOC)
recovered from the processing plant effluent were significantly greater
(P < 0.01) than the receiving water populations in all cases. At low
tide, July aerobic plate counts (20C, 1.70x 104 organisms/ml) and marine
agar plate counts (ZOC, 4.68 x 104 organisms/ml) were significantly
greater (P < 0.01) at the disc~arge point than the upstream or downstream
stations (mean range 1. 35 x 10 to 1.05 x 104 organi3ms/ml). August low
tide aerobic plate count populations (3SC, 4.27 x 10 organisms/ml) were
significantly greater (P < 0.01) at the discharge point than the upstream
18
(468 organisms/ml) or downstream (537 organisms/ml) stations The same
pattern was followed for marine agar plate counts (6.17 x 10~ organisms/ml)
at low tide, which were significantly greater (P < 0.01) than the upstream
(3.71 x 103 organisms/ml) or downstream (2.40 x 10 3 organisms/ml) stations .
The effluent's effect on the microbial populations of the estuary cannot
be detected at the Sidney Lanier Bridge, one-half mile downstream. July
high tide zoe aerobic plate counts (766 organisms/ml) and 35e aerobic
plate counts (537 organisms/ml) at the discharge point were significantly
greater (P < 0.05) than the respective populations downstream at the
Sidney Lanier Bridge (324 organisms/ml and 282 organisms/ml, respectively)
and significantly less (P < 0.01) than the upstream populations of
3.09 x 103 organisms/ml and Z.04 x 103 organis.ms/ml. Flood tide waters
appeared to transport microbial organisms discharged from the plant upstream, where they accumulated in significantly greater numbers at the
Fourth Avenue station during the July sampling run. The high tide results
from August show significantly higher (P < 0.05) populations of aerobic
plate count organisms at zoe (1.58 X 103 organisms/ml) and 3Se (1.78 X
103 organisrns/ml) and marine organisms at 20e (3.24 X 105, P < 0.01)
associated with the discharge point than those organisms determined up
or dawnst~eam from the station. The marine microbial level (ZOe) of
Z.l9 x 10 organisms/ml at the upstream station was significantly greater
(P < 0.05) than the downstream station at high tide ( 6.46 x 103 organisms/
ml), and represented the single August indicator of organism transport
upstream from the processing plant discharge point.
The seafood processing plant discharged 215,000 gallons of effluent
per day from peeling, sorting, thawing, and cleaning operations, contributing the following physical, chemical, and biological components to
the estuary:
BOD (pounds)
Suspended Solids (pounds)
NH4-N (pounds)
Aerobic Organisms, zoe
Aerobic Organisms, 3Se
Marine Organisms' zoe
Total eolifonns
Fecal eoliforms
494
161
4
1. 34 x lQlS
1. 81 X 1015
1.08 X lOif
7.66 X 10
5.45 x 1o10
The BOD load at the discharge point was significantly higher than surrounding waters in two of four surface samples. The increase ranged
from less than 1 to lZ mg/1 . The effluent appears to be well diluted
before it reaches the downstream station (Sidney Lanier Bridge). In
two instances, (i) at high tide (2.67 mg/1) and (ii) low tide (6.41 mg/1),
BOD values in the bottom waters of the upstream station (Fourth Avenue)
were significantly greater than the downstream station. The BOD levels,
particularly from the bottom waters, determined for the upstream station
were one of several indications of organic entrapment and breakdown in
the ship basin next to the Fourth Avenue dock . The seafood processing
plant effluent is not the only possible source of materials collecting
19
in the basin, but it must certainly contribute to the overall load at
that station. The effluent suspended solids load is relatively low and
within the normal range of natural estuarine fluctuations. At high tide
the suspended solids load of the effluent was significantly less than the
receiving waters for one bottom sample, with no difference for the remaining samples. At low tide, two surface and one bottom sample contained
significantly fewer suspended solids than the effluent. The large bottom
suspended solids load determined from high tide (633 mg/1) and low tide
(528 mg/1) samples collected at Fourth Avenue in July supports the conjecture that materials accumulate in the ship basin.
NH4 levels in the effluent (mean range 1616-2649 ~g/1) were significantly greater than the receiving water levels on all sampling runs. Dilution and dispersion of the NH4 is intermittent and less rapid than the
other monitored chemical parameters. Significantly higher NH4 levels were
determined in three of four surface samples and in one bottom sample at
the discharge point. Elevated NH4 levels were detected in three of four
bottom samples collected from the Fourth Avenue station. The dissolved
oxygen content of the effluent was significantly greater than the receiving waters on all occasions (mean range 5.60- 7.55 mg/1). A significant
reduction in dissolved oxygen content at the discharge point provided
evidence of immediate oxygen demand caused by mixing of the effluent with
receiving waters in July (bottom low tide value of 3.79 mg/1) and August
(surface high tide of 4.35 mg/1). A surface reduction in dissolved oxygen
was demonstrated at the downstream station in July and August at low tide
(4.47 and 4.47 mg/1).
Effluent aerobic (20C and 35C) and marine (20C) plate counts were
significantly greater than all receiving water populations sampled. The
plant discharge point had significantly higher levels of (i) aerobic
plate count organisms (20C) on three of four sampling runs, (ii) aerobic
plate counts (3SC) on three of four determinations, and (iii) marine agar
plate counts on three of four occasions. The effluent appears to be
rapidly diluted during low tides with no significant increase in microbial
numbers at the Sidney Lanier Bridge. Microbiological populations upstream
at the Fourth Avenue station rose significantly following flood tides with
increased aerobic nlate count organisms at zoe (3.09 x 103 organisrns/ml)
and 3SC (2.04 x 103 organisms/ml) in July and increased marine organisms
(6.46 x 103 organisms/ml) in August.
The fecal coliform levels of the processing plant effluent (geometric
mean of 2889 organisrns/100 ml) exceed State of Georgia microbiological
guidelines for waters classified for recreation, and waters used for
fishing, propagation of fish, shellfish, game, and other aquatic life,
but remained under geometric limit of 5000 fecal coliforms/100 ml used
to designate agricultural or navigational waters (Georgia Department of
Natural Resources,l974). A geometric mean of 139 fecal coliforms/100 ml
at the discharge point exceeds the 100 organisms/100 ml limit set for
coastal recreation waters but was well within state requirements of the
river's current classification for fishing, propagation of fish, shellfish, game, and other aquatic life (a geometric mean of 1,000 fecal coliforms/100 ml) . The remainder of the southern area stations were within
20
the fecal coliform limits set for recreation waters (Georgia Department of
Natural Resources,l974).
1'!-1 3 levels in the Northern and Southern Areas
The recent proposal by the U.S. Eriv1ronmental Protection Agency
(Federal Register, Vol. 42, No. 2, January 3, 1980) to include ammonia in
the toxic pollutants list (1977 Amendments to the Clean Water Act, 33
U.S.S. 1251 etseq.) could have had an adverse effect on the seafood processing industry and represented a significant reversal of EPA policy.
On August 29, 1979, EPA withdrew 1983 BAT (Best Available Technology
Economically Achievable) standards until completion of a new s tudy that
will propose new BCT (Best Conventional Technology) standards to replace
the defunct BAT standards and present BPT (Best Practical Control Technology Currently Available) standards. Pollutants listed as toxic under
section 308(a) are not eligible for waivers from BAT based on water quality
(section 30l(g)] or economic [section 30l(c)] grounds. Listing of a
pollutant under section 307 may also affect the date by which BAT requirements are met, and could lead to the ~ediate establishment of effluent
standards under section 307.
Un-ionized ammonia, NH3 , which is 50 times more toxic than [NH4]+,
has been identified as a probable toxic agent by the U.S. EPA at levels
above 20 ~g/1 (Emerson et al., 1975) (Thurston et al.,l978) (Trusset 1972).
The ammonia- ammonium equilibrium shifts toward NH3 with increasing pH and
temperature and toward [NH4]+ with increasing ion1c strength, salinity in
estuarine waters (Bower and Bidwell,l978) ( Trussel,l972). As the proportion of un-ionized ammonia varies with environmental conditions and
cannot be directly controlled in the ambient water, EPA proposed to list
total anmonium, [M-14] +, as a toxic pollutant. The proposed maximum permissible level of total ammonium was not stated in the Federal Register,
but a single standard for all water types and locations was implied.
The NH~ levels listed in Tables 30 and 31 were calculated using Bower
and Bidwell s (Bower and Bidwell,l978) calculations (as referenced by
the January 3, 1980 Federal Register) from [NH4]+ determinations completed
during the monitoring operations of estuarine stations and processing and
packing house discharges in the northern and southern sampling areas. The
tentative EPA guideline of 20 ~g NH3/l was not exceeded by any estuarine
station in the northern or southern sampling areas. The packing house
effluent at 5.75 ~g NH3/l was well below the guidelines. The processing
plant discharge exceeds the tentative ammonia guidelines with maximum
and minimum NH3 concentrations of 75.23 ~g/1 and 39.11 ~g/1, respectively.
The maximum NH 3 level at the plant discharge point reached 10.87 ug/1 for
bottom water samples. Marker "19" (10.68 ~g m3/l) approached and Marker
"24" (18.04 ~g m3/l) exceeded (nearing the EPA limit) the M-I3 concentrations of the d1scharge point at 5.75 miles and 2. 75 miles downstream
from the plant, respectively. Marker "19" and "24" were located in areas
of strong tidal currents and were exposed to tidal mixing with oceanic
waters.
21
Other monitoring parameters indicated little or no processing plant
influence on the seaward stations. NH3 levels were elevated at the
Fourth Avenue East River station with a maximum concentration of 17.54 ~g/1.
Natural maxilnum NH3 levels monitored in St. Simons Sound 5.75 miles seaward of the processing plant approached NH3 levels determined at the
plant's discharge point. Two estuarine stations in the southern area approached 20 ~g NH3/l. Both samples were collected from the bottom, near
the entrance to St. Simons Sound and in the basin at Fourth Avenue, a site
of intermittent concentrations of decomposing organic materials believed
to be transported to the area by tidal flow.
CONCLUSIONS
Cedar Creek, Shellbluff Creek, and the Duplin River were characterized
by relatively shallow sills at the mouths of the rivers with deeper basins
further upstream. Water exchange across the sills was limited, particularly
in Shellbluff Creek and Cedar Creek, as evidenced by decreased oxygen
concentrations. BOD levels from the northern control stations indicated
a naturally occurring organic load greater than that determined for the
southern control station. More microbial organisms were transported into
the area at high tide than were flushed out during low tide. Levels were
low, however, with mean coliform populations below those required for shellfish growing areas (Houser,l965).
The northern sampling area was exposed to little packing house
activity; however, the basins next to the packing houses and the shallow
upstream stations at the end of Shellbluff Creek and Cedar Creek were
the area~ most stressed waters. The impact of full packing house production on the shallow monitored creeks cannot be reliably predicted from
one grab sample, but water quality at the packing house basins and at
the shallow upstream portions of the small estuaries could be degraded
to an unacceptable degree if overloaded with packing wastes. The single
packing house discharge sample had significantly higher NH4, BOD, and
microbiological levels than the receiving waters, and significantly
elevated the NH4 levels at the packing house discharge point. Nitrogen
i s a limiting factor in most southeastern estuaries, and excessive amounts
could produce phyto-plankton blooms and an ensuing reduction in water
quality (Haines,l979) (Ho and Barret,l975) (Rhyther and Dunstan,l971)
(Thayer,l974) (Thurston et al., 1978). The remaining parameters had little
impact on the receiving waters.
Baseline water quality data have been established during a poor
shrimping year with little or no packing house activity for several small
coastal Georgia estuaries which are normally exposed to seafood packing
wastes. Comparison of the baseline data with future studies during
normal production years will be required to establish the impact of
packing house wastes on small southeastern estuaries .
Despite the lack of packing house act~vity during the study, the
seafood processing plant discharged a daily average of 215,000 gallons
of seafood processing wastes into the East River. The southern area was
22
characterized by (i) greater tidal mixing than the northern area, (ii) net
transport of microorganisms out of the estuary with max~ populations
at low tide, (iii) water quality generally increasing with seaward movement and following a simple dilution pattern, and (iv) greater environmental stress than the northern area. BOD, NH4, and microbial levels
were significantly greater in the effluent than the southern receiving
waters.
BOD loads increased approximately one mg/1 at the discharge point in
40% of the samples tested. Good downstream mixing and dilution of the
BOD load was demonstrated, but flood tides produced an occasional BOD
increase in the basin at the upstream station (Fourth Avenue East River).
Dissolved oxygen levels fell below the Georgia Environmental Protection
Division minimum of 4.0 mg/1 for recreational and fishing waters in both
the developed and undeveloped areas, including the Duplin River or control
estuary, and Cedar Creek which received no processing or packing effluents
during the study. The data indicate that in summer, dissolved oxygen
levels below 3.0 mg/1 are not uncommon for undeveloped portions of Georgia's
estuaries.
NH4 dispersion was less rapid and more intermittent than the other
parameters, with levels at the discharge point elevated significantly
in 50% of the samples. NH4 levels were significantly higher at the
Fourth Avenue station in 75% of the bottom samples. Again, the water
quality of the deep basin at Fourth Avenue decreased relative to the
surrounding stations .
Low tides brought rapid dilution of microbiological populations seaward of the processing plant discharge point, which had significantly
greater populations than surrounding waters in 75% of the samples, and
high tides led to the entrapment of microorganisms at the Fourth Avenue
station. Although effluent MPN fecal co~iform populations (geometric
mean of 2889 organisms/100 ml) exceeded State of Georgia EPD guidelines
for waters used to propagate fish and shellfish (the current classification
of the Brunswick River and the East River), the waters at the discharge
point (geometric mean of 139 organisms/100 ml) were within the guideline
(Georgia Department of Natural Resources,l974). All other stations were
within EPD mean fecal coliform maximum levels for recreational waters
(Georgia Department of Natural Resources,l974).
Ebb tides appeared to rapidly flush the estuary of pollutants, showing
a simple dilution pattern for plant discharges, moving seaward. The impact of the seafood processing waste was dissipated within 0.5 mile of
the processing plant discharge point . Flood tide interactions were more
complex, resulting in occasional upstream transport and entrapment of
processing and other East River wastes in the basin at Fourth Avenue. As
in the northern area, the deep basins and upstream stations were most
sensitive to the impact of the seafood processing wastes. Generally,
the effect of the processing plant effluent was dissipated within onehalf mile of the discharge pipe, while occasional hydrographic conditions
resulted in the deterioration of water quality one-half mile upstream
23
from the plant. None of the monitored parameters reached critical levels ,
but basins and areas subject to poor tidal flushing could place constraints
on seafood processing waste disposal.
Measurable, statistically significant differences in a number of monitored chemical and biological parameters were determined for seafood
packing and processing effluents generated from peeling, sorting, thawing,
cleaning, and heading operations and for the receiving waters of developed
and undeveloped estuaries. Generally, the effects were short-lived and
rapidly dissipated with tidal flushing. Shallow sills and deep basins
reduced tidal exchange and led to increased organic loads, even in areas
that did not receive seafood wastes. Georgia's coastal estuaries normally carry a high particulate and dissolved organic load from the natural
flushing of vast, highly productive coastal marshes (Reimold et al., 1975)
(Stickney and Miller,l973). Calculations converting the seafood processing plant's daily BOD load (494 pounds) to 3 given weight of organic
material (in terms of glucose/glutamic acids, 1:1) produced daily organic
load values equivalent to the organic material discharged from a 302 m2
plot (57 feet x 57 feet) of salt marsh per day (American Public Health
Association,l976) (Reimold et al.,l975). The impact of small packing
houses and processing plants discharging only seafood waste, not breading
or sewage, is small when compared to the estuarine organic load.
In addition to a normally large organic load, Georgia's estuaries
appear to have a great assimilative reserve capacity for organic materials,
as indicated by three 1976 studies conducted at stations in the developed
estuary (Brunswick Junior College,l975) (Georgia Environmental Protection Divi sion,l976) (Reimold et al ,1976). The ~ix-year average for shrimp landings
prior to 1979 was 6. 9 x 10 6 pounds (heads on), making 1979 an above-average
year with 7. 8 x 106 pounds landed (Wise and Thompson, 1977) • The packing
houses in the developed estuary were operational. In addition to the present processing plant BOD load (225 - 295 mg/1) from the peeling, sorting,
thawing , and washing operations, all processing effluents with a combined
BOD load of 900 - 3400 mg/1 were discharged to the Brunswick River (Georgia
Environmental Protection Division,l976) (Reimold et al.,l976). River BOD
levels near the present discharge pipe (600 feet from the previous discharge point) that ranged from 3.2 - 5.2 mg/1 were within the 1979 range
of 0.9- 13.3 mg/1 (Brunswick Junior College,l975) (Georgia Environmental
Protection Division,l976) (Reimold et al.,l976). The mean BOD value at the
basin 0.5 mile upstream (Fourth Avenue) from the plant (2.93 mg/1) was
slightly greater than the previous study's mean value of 1.84 mg/1, but
the ranges, 1.10- 5.70 mg/1 and 0.59- 6.50 mg/1, respectively, were
similar (Brunswick Junior College,l975) (Georgia Environmental Protection
Division,l976) (Reimold et al.,l976). The results indicate relatively
st able biological oxygen demands at different processing loads. July and
August dissolved oxygen values at the processing plant discharge point,
Fourth Avenue, and at the Lanier Bridge (mean values of 4.46 mg/1, 4.78
mg/1, and 4.71 mg/1, respectively) were within Georgia EPD guidelines for
estuarine waters (Georgia Department of Natural Resources,l974). Summer
dissolved oxygen values taken from an EPD study in August of 1976 (Georgia
Environmental Protection Division,l976) at two stations, the Lanier Bridge
24
and near the present processing plant dishcharge (mean 3.92 mg/1), fell
below the Georgia Department of Natural Resources dissolved oxygen standard of 4.00 mg/1 for estuarine waters during a period of large processing
plant BOD loads and normal packing house operations (Georgia Department
of Natural Resource~ 1974) (Georgia Environmental Protection Division,
1976) (Reimold et al., 1976) (Wise and Thompson,l977) . However, the dissolved oxygen levels were within the range of values determined for the
undeveloped estuaries that received no seafood discharges. The data
indicate that the Brunswick East River estuary can absorb relatively large
BOD loads from seafood processing and packing plants with few adverse
effects.
NH4 levels in the runoff water from a salt marsh in Georgia (1028
approached the mean range 1616 - 2649 ug/1 NH4 concentrations
determined in the processing plant discharge (Haines,l979). An ammonia
level of 20.4 ug/1 was obtained by converting the concentration in the
salt marsh (1028 ~g/1) to NH3, assuming a pH of 7.5, salinity of l8°ho,
and a temperature of 28C (Bower and Bidwell,l978). The salt marsh runoff from a pristine area exceeded EPA's proposed NH3 maximum permissible
level of 20 ug/1 (Bower and Bidwell, 1978) (Haines, 1979). Additional NH3
levels of 10.7 ~g/1 and 18.0 ug/1 at the two most seaward stations, Marker
"19" and Marker "24," support the natural occurrence of high M-13 levels
in Georgia's estuarine waters. The greatest NH3 concentration within
0.5 mile of the processing plant occurred at the bottom of the Fourth
Avenue (upstream) station (17.5 ~g/1) and fell within EPA's tentative
NH3 guideline and naturally occurring NH3 levels determined from less
developed areas.
~g/1)
In the December 1, 1980 Federal Register, the Environmental Protection
Agency withdrew its proposal to add ammonia to the Toxic Pollutant List.
In announcing the decision, EPA cited several conclusions developed in
this study:
a.
b.
c.
d.
Ammonia is biodegradable and does not persist in the
aquatic environment.
EPA's listing of ammonia as a toxic pollutant would
result in stringent treatment requirements that would
have to be met in areas where increased ammonia removal
would not materially improve the lot of aquatic organisms.
Total ammonia should not be listed as a toxic pollutant,
because in natural waters only a fraction of total ammonia
is in the toxic un-ionized form. Since the fraction varies
with water quality and temperature, the parameter of concern should be un-ionized ammonia.
Marine waters are so well suited for absorbing and
using ammonia that it poses no problem in such waters.
25
The environmental impact of current seafood processing wastes on
Georgia's estuaries appears to be minimal when compared with the natural
organic load. One large estuary demonstrated a high residual capacity
to receive processing effluents without significant change. Problems
could develop from the entrapment of organic wastes in basins, and
further study during periods of normal packing volume is required. BOD
and NH 4-N levels in processing wastes were shown to be greater than, but
the same order of magnitude as, natural runoff from marshland.
26
REFERENCES
AMERICAN PUBLIC HEAL'Ill ASSOCIATION. 1976. Standard Methods for the
Examination of Water and Wastewater, Fourteenth Edition, pp. 411-447,
132-134, 543-550, 550-554. American Public Health Assoc., Washington,
D.C.
ASSOCIATION OF OFFICIAL ANALYTICAL CHEMISTS. 1975. Official Methods of
Analyses of the Association of Official Analytical Chemists, p. 606.
Association of Official Analytical Chemists, Washington, D.C.
BOWER, C. E. and J. P. BIDWELL. 1978. Ionization of ammonia in seawater;
effects of temperature, pH, and salinity. J. Fish. Res. Board Can.
35: 1012-1016.
BRUNSWICK JUNIOR COLLEGE. 1975. Water Quality Investigation of Estuaries
of Georgia. 73 pp. Environmental Protection Division, Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Atlanta, Georgia.
BRUNSWICK JUNITOR COLLEGE. 1976. Water Quality Investigation of Estuaries
of Georgia 1975. 94 pp. Environmental Protection Division, Georgia
Department of Natural Resources, Atlanta, Georgia.
BRUNSWICK JUNIOR COLLEGE. 1977. Water Quality Investigation of Estuaries
of Georgia 1976. 116 pp. Environmental Protection Division, Georgia
Department of Natural Resources, Atlanta, Georgia.
EMERSON, K., R. C. RUSSO, R. E. LUND, and R. V. 1HURSTON.
1975. Aqueous
ammonia equilibrium calculations: Effects of pH and Temperature.
J. Fish. Res. Board Can. 32: 2379-2383.
FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION. 1978. Bacteriological Analytical Manual.
P. IV-1 to IV-10, V-1 to V-6. Association of Official Analytical
Chemists, Washington, D.C.
GEORGIA DEPAR1MENT OF NAWRAL RESOURCES. 1974. Rules and Regulations
for Water Quality Control, Chapter 391-3-6 revised June, 1974, pp.
701-731. Georgia Environmental Protection Division, Atlanta, Georgia.
GEORGIA ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION DIVISION. 1976. Brtmswick Estuary
Study . 52 pp. Georgia Environmental Protection Division, Department
of Natural Resources, Atlanta, Georgia.
HAINES, E. B. 1979.
2(1): 34- 49.
Nitrogen pools in Georgia coastal waters.
Estuaries
HO, CLARA L. and BARNEY B. BARRETT. 1975. Distribution of nutrients in
Louisiana's coastal waters influenced by the Mississippi River.
Louisiana Wildlife and Fi sheries Corrunission; Oysters, Water Bottoms ,
and Seafood Division Technical Bulletin No. 17: 1-39.
27
HOUSER, LEROY S. 1965. National Shellfish Sanitation Program Manual
of Operations. Part 1, Sanitation of Shellfish Growing Areas , p. 32.
U. S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Public Health
Service, Washington, D.C.
MARTIN, DEAN F. 1970. Marine Chemistry, Vol II, Theory and Application,
pp. 117-124. Marcel Dekker, Inc., New York, N.Y.
MARTIN, DEAN F. 1972. Marine Chemistry, Vol I, Analytical Methods, pp.
148-152. Marcel Dekker, Inc., New York, N.Y.
REIMOLD, R. J., W. A. BOUGH, and M.A. HARDISKY. 1976. Dissolved oxygen
and biochemical oxygen demand in the Brunswick Estuary and King Shrimp
Company, Inc. process effluent. 26 pp. University of Georgia Marine
Resources Extension Center. Brunswick, Georgia.
REIM)LD, R. J . , J. L. GALLAGHER, R. A. LINIHURST, and W. J. PFEIFFER.
1975 . Detritus production in coastal Georgia salt marshe~ pp. 217228. In: Estuarine Research, Vol. !:Chemistry, Biology, and the
Estuarine System. Academic Press, Inc., New York, N.Y.
REMINGTON, RIQIARD D. and M. .AN'IHONY SHORK. 1970 . Statistics with
Applications to the Biological and Health Sciences, pp. 299-301.
Prentice -Hal~ Inc., Englewood Cliffs, N.J.
RHYTHER, J.H. and W. M. DUNSTAN . 1971. Nitrogen, phosphorous, and
eutrophication in the coastal marine environment. Science 171: 1008 1012.
SCHEFLER, W. C. 1969. Statistics for the Biological Sciences, pp. 104119. Addis on-Wesley Publishing Co ., Reading, Mass.
SCHLEPER, CARL . 1972. Research Methods in Marine Biology, pp. 281-289 .
University of Washington Press, Seattle, Washington.
SCOTT, PAUL M., MARC D. WRIQ-IT, and WAYNE A. BOUGH. 1978. Characterization of waste loading from a shrimp packing house and evaluation of
different screen sizes for removal of heads, pp. 214-224. In:
Ranzell Nickelson (ed.), Proceedings of the Third Annual Tropical and
Subtropical Fisheries Conference of the Americas. Texas A&M University , College Station , Texas.
STICKNEY, ROBERT T. and DAVID MILLER. 1973. Chemical and biological
survey of the Savarmah River adjacent to Elba Island. Technical
Report Series Number 73-3. 68 pp. Skidaway Institute of Oceanography, Savannah, Georgia.
THAYER, G. W. 1974. Identity and regulation of nutrients limiting
phytoplankton production in shallow estuaries near Beaufort, N.C.
Oecologia 14: 75-92.
28
1HURSTON, R. V., R. C. RUSSO, and C. E. SMI1H. 1978. Acute toxicity
of ammonia and nitrite to cutthroat trout fry. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc.,
197(2), 361-368.
TRUSSEL, R. P. 1972. The percent un - ionized ammonia in aqueous solutions
at different pH levels and temperatures. J. Fish. Res. Board Canada.
29: 1505-1507.
U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY. 1976. Methods for Chemical
Analysis of Water and Wastes, pp. 11-12, 249-265. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio.
WISE, J. P. and B. G. THOMPSON. 1977. Fisheries of the United States,
1976, p. 96. U. S. Department of Conunerce, NOAA, Washington, D.C.
FIGURES
29
SOUTH
CAROLINA
<\)~P"
GEORGIA
Legend
8
Developed Eatuary
8Undeveloped Eatuary
FIGURE 1.
Study Areas.
30
LUUD
*
0
e
0
Sa• ,It Statltt
PK~ilt
~" +Q
IIIII
..q ..
StaftM PrtctUIII Platt
0
q, o.,"
I
'
km
FIGURE 2.
Undeveloped Estuary.
ST.
IIliONS
18.
.,.••••t•••
.....
~
•
ST. SIIIIS
s•••
*
0
8
....,
...
LUEII
4"'
S••Jit Shtl•
P~eki•l
••se
• ,.
:
Sufld l'rKtsSill Pl111t
F I GURE 3.
o
h~ q,·
1
r
")v
'
Deve l o p e d Estua r y .
(J.j
I-'
32
0
•
26 . 0
•
26 . 0
•
26 . 0
•
26 . 0
. 26 . 1
•
26 . 0
•
26 .1
•
26 . 1
•
26.2
26 . 0
26.2
•
26 . 0
•
26.2
•
26 . 1
••
1
2
3
26.0
•
4
(/)
0:::
5
L.U
......
6
L.U
~
7
•
25.8
z
-
8
:I=:
......
c...
9
26 . 2
•
26 . 2
L.U
~
10
26 . 2
11
12
26 .2
13
14
FIGURE 4 :
Mouth of
Duplin River
Sape l o
Main
Dock
Mouth of Sawdust Pile
Barn Creek
Duplin
River
Duplin River Temperature ( oc) Profile
(Hydrographic Survey).
Northe rn
Bend of
Duplin
Rive r
33
0
24
•
23
•
22
•
20
•
20
•
25
•
22
•
20
•
20
22
•
20
•
20
•
22
20
•
1
2
3
25
•
4
(/)
c::::
5
w
t-
6
w
E::
25
7
•
27
z
-
8
:::c
ta_
9
•
20
w
Q
10
20
11
12
22
13
14
FIGURE 5 :
Mouth of
Duplin River
Sapelo
Main
Dock
Mouth of Sawdust Pil e
Barn Creek
Duplin
River
Dup l in River Salinity Pr of i le ( 0 /00}
(Hydrographic Survey) .
Northern
Bend of
Duplin
River
34
0
•
5.73
(8 1 )
•
5 . 83
( 8 2)
•
5 . 64
(79)
•
4 . 72
(65)
•
4 . 75
(66)
1
2
3
•
5. 61
( 8 0)
•
5. 4 6
(78)
4
(/)
0:::
5
LJ.J
t-
w
£
5.60
6
7
5.64
( 81 )
( 8 0)
8
4. 94
~
to_
(68)
9
w
~
10
4 . 62
(64)
11
12
5. 38
( 7 6)
13
14
F IGURE 6 :
Mo uth of
Duplin Ri ve r
Sape l o
Main
Dock
Mouth of Sawdust Pi l e
Dupl i n
Ba rn Creek
River
No rthe r n
Be nd of
Dup l in
River
Dup l in Ri ver D.O . (mg/1) and (% Saturation) Profile
(Hydrographic S ur vey ).
0 -..-
1
• 27.8
• 28. 0
• 27.6
I 2 7. 6
•
28.0
•
28.0
l
27 . 8
-~
2 --
3-
~
• 28.0
(/)
0::::
w
1-
4-
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
w
::E:
z
:::I:
5- -
~
1-
~~)(7. 8
a...
w
~
~
Q
6- -
• 27.8
7 -~
8-28.0
9
Station
Marker 16 2
FI GURE 7:
Station
Telephone
Pole
Packing House
Dock
She llbluff Cr eek Te mperature (°C) Profile
(Hydrographic Survey) .
Bend Above
Packing Hou se
35
0
36
•
23
•
24
•
23
•
23
23
•
24
•
23
1
2
3
23
(/)
0:::
w
1--
4
w
:::E:
z
:::::c
5
1--
a..
w
0
• . 23
6
7
8
23
9
Station
Marker 162
FIGURE 8::
Station
Telephone
Pole
. Packing House
Dock
Shellbl u ff Cre e k Sa lini t y Pr of il e
(Hydrographi c Su r vey) .
(0 / o o )
Bend Above
Packing House
0
•
5. 11
•
(74)
4. 86
( 71)
5.36
3.98
(78)
(56)
•
4.14
(60)
•
4. 07
(59)
1
2
3
•
•
3. 77
(SS)
3 .1 5
(46)
(/)
0::::
w
I-
4
w
:E
:;;:::::::
::c
5
Ia_
w
0
•
6
3 . 81
(55)
7
8
9
Station
Marker 162
FIGURE 9:
S t ation
Telephone
Pole
Packing House
Dock
Bend Above
Packing House
Shellbluf£ Creek D. O. Profile (rng/1) and ( % Saturation)
(Hydrograp hic Survey).
37
38
•
0
27 . 9
•
28.0
•
28.2
•
•
28.4
28.4
1
28.0
V'>
2
0::::
w
27.8
t-
28 . 2
w
s::::
z
3
::X::
10...
UJ
28 . 0
4
28 . 2
0
5
6
J.k>uth of
Cedar Cr eek
FIGURE 1 0 :
Old
Boat
Cr .ib / Packing
Sou th of
Cedar Creek
Hou se Dock
Red Dock
Last Dock
Cedar Creek Temperature ( ° C ) Profile
(Hydrographic Survey ) .
39
• 24
0
•
24
•
24
• 24
• 24
1
24
(/)
2
0::::
LJ.J
24
tLJ.J
:::E:
z:
3
:::c
t-
a...
L.LJ
23
4
Cl
5
6
Mouth of
Ce da r Cree k
FIGURE 11:
Old
Boa t
Cr ab/Pac k i n g
Hous e Dock
Cedar Cr e ek Sa li n i ty P r ofi l e
(Hyd r ogra phic Su r vey ) .
South of
Re d Dock
( O/
oo)
Ced a r Creek
Las t Dock
40
•
0
4 . 98
4 . 67
( 7 3)
• ( 68)
4 . 3·1
• ( 63)
4.57
• (67)
4.5 3
• (67)
1
4. 3 1
(6 3)
(/)
2
0:::
LJ.J
1LJ.J
E:
z:
-
4 . 40
(6 5)
4 . 71
(69)
3
::c
4. 17
( 61)
1-
c...
LJ.J
0
3 . 61
(53)
4
5
6
Mouth of
Cedar Creek
FIGURE 12 :
Ol d
Boat
Crab / Packi ng
House Do~k
Ce d a r Creek D.O. (mg/1) a n d
(Hyd rographic Survey) •
South of
Red Dock
( % Saturation)
Cedar Creek
Last Dock
Profile
0 -r-•25.8
•
•
2 5. 7
•
26.0
•
26.0
•
25.8
26.1
•
26. 1
26.2
•
2 6. 2
•
26.4
•
•
41
•
26.2
•
26.4
26.0
•
26. 4
•
26 . 6
26.8
26 .8
1 -r-
-
234-
-·
25 . 8
25.6
•
26.0
•
2 6.0
•
•
Z6 . 0
r-
2 5. 6
~
•
26. 4
•
5 -6
(/;
c:::
w
1-
-·
- 25 . 7
25.6
•
•
26.0
26 . 0
)["
8 - r-
7 ....
:a:
10 -
c...
9 ~·
25. 6
L.&.J
c
11 -
•
25. 5
13
•
26.0
•
• 26.0
26 . 0
~
26.0
25.2
26.
25.a
~
1'x
~
A
Harker 19
B=
Marker 22
D=
w
E
~ F
G
H
x I
)< J =
~
15 - ....
16 - r-
--
(\
STATIONS
c
I
14 - ,_
17 - ,_
Qo
~
h
ln.
~
25 . 8
18
~§
~
-·-
12 -
~
26.6
:I:
1-
~
2 6. 7
L.&.J
2:.
•
r
Marker 24
Sidney Lanier Bridge
Processing Pl ant
Forth Avenue
Prince Street
Range Marker
"K" Street
End of East River
""~
~ 2 5. 3
>0 X
A
FIGURE 13 :
B
c
n
E
F
G
~
H
Brunswick Estuary Profile (Southern Area) Temperature (°C)
(Hydrographic Survey).
~
42
0 -~26
•
•
•
•2 5
27
•::' 5
~3
•
22
•
22
•
•::2
•
•24
•
•
:'4
'>'
_4
-
12
•28
-
~
3 - ~-28
29
26
•
24
25
24
4 - .-
5-
•
? '
-4
_4
R
~
~
6 - ~·
•
28
7-
•
'1'
28
•
26
•
•
•
25
24
23
24
~
24...
-9 - ~--·
28
~
'>?
24
~
;.x,
8
-
25 .
•
29
•
26
~
•
#,
25
10 - 1-
12 - .....
11
I
~
-~·
24~
25
29
13 -
A
2 ..
. B=
~
28
15 -
16 -
~
><
:
:
.: :8
c-
E-
Sidney Lanier Bridge ,
Processing Plant
F
G=
H-
m
17 -~
STATIONS
Marker 19
Marker 22
Marker 24
;( D=
14 - 1-
mBi
...
~
..
Range Marker
I - "K"
J=
:
Forth Av~e
Prince Street
Street
End of East River
~ 29
18 -~
~
><
A
FIGuRE 14:
B
c
D
E
F
G
Brunswick Estuary Salinity Profile- (O/oo)
(Southern Area)
(Hydrographic Survey).
H
~
:
:
: x
•
6.11
0 -;1
6 . 16
( 87)
•
5.81
(8 4)
(88 )
6.82
•
•5.55
4.92
•
4.99
•
•5.28
t'. 48
(97)
(79 )
(69)
(70)
(7 4)
(64)
4~
•
4.7
(6 7
1--
2--
5.43
( 7 6)
•
3--
•
•
3. ~
( 50
3.79
(54)
4 . 51
(64)
4-s-~
•
•83
5.
6--
5.61
(80)
(84)
5•. 56
~)O~LX.XJ<.-.
(7 9)
5•
. 03
•
4.17
(71)
(59)
7 -~
3.93
2.94
(S n )
( 4 2)
4.19
(60)
8--
~
4.30
( 6 2) !IV'.
~
9- f-4 6 . 05
( 87)
:I:
1CL
11-~
4.70
(66)
w
,;:::::;
12--
~...
<><><
~
•
A •
Y
'(X X,
Marker 19
(81)
~
6 . 09
(88) 1
14--
~
~
c
n-
E=
~ F=
<XXX)<)
15-~
Marker 22
Marker 24
Sidney Lanier Bri dge
Processing Plant
Forth Av enu e
~ G= Pr i nce Street
16-17--
X X X 1< l<
STATIONS
5 . 63
13--
• '""' "
~
H=
Range Marker
I J=
"K" Street
End of East River
5<6. 1 9
(89)
18-- ~~
A
FIGURE 15 :
Yo
B
c
D
E
F
G
Br unsw i ck Es t uary Profi l e (Southe rn Ar e a ) D.O .
and {% Sat uration) (Hydrogr aphic Su r vey)
H
(mg . l)
I
.J
44
0
-
r-
•
•
•
33
32
3 1. 5
•
•
30
30
•
3 4 .5
33
•
33
•
33
34
1 -2 - .....
34 ~
3 -
--
4 -
1-
5 - i(/)
c:::::
w
~
w
:c::
6 - .....
8
;z:
-
--
7 -
~
~
>6(
,
31. 5
28 . 5
l
f
.
~
~
J
~~
x
32 . 5
:
41
~
30
=
9
--
~
1-
c....
w
~
10 - -
· '.<
STATI<l'JS
11 - 1-
A
B
32
12 -
15
16
Mou t h of Barn Creek
c-
~
D
E
FG
H
13 - i 14
Sa pel o Main Dock
- i-
Ma rker " 162"
Packing House Dock
Bend Above Pac king House
Mouth o f Cedar Creek
Cr ab/Pac ki ng House Dock
Cedar Creek Last Doc k
-
1-
1-
A
FIGURE 16 :
B
c
D
E
F
Northern Sampling Area Temperature Profile
at Low Tide during July.
G
( oc)
H
45
0
- ,.....
•
21
•
•
20
21
•
21
•
20
•
•
21
•
21
21
:!1
20 . 5
1 - f-
-
~
3 -
~
4
-
~
5
-
~
2
(/)
0::
w
1-
6 -
~
21
•.
20
(
~
7
-
8 -
~
21
<
•
~
20
z:
.........
..
~
w
:::::
20 ' )<
)C
9
-
~
10
-
~
:J::
1o_
w
0
STATiot'JS
A
B
11 - r20
12
13
14
-
Sapelo Main Dock
Mou t h of Barn Cr eek
c
~
-
- ,_
Mark er "162"
D
E
F
G
Packing House Dock
H
Cedar Creek Last Dock
Bend Above Packing House
Mouth of Cedar Cr eek
Crab/Packing Hou se Dock
15 - ,_
16 - t
A
FIGURE 17 :
B
c
D
E
F
G
Nor thern Sampl i ng Area Sal inity Profi le (O/oo )
at Low Tide during July
H
46
0 - r-
1
-1-
•
5.26
(81)
•
•
4. 21
(65)
4.69
(74)
•
3.50
(52)
•
3. 5 1
(51)
•
•
4. 34
(6 9)
3.95
(62)
~~ ~
3 - !-
4 - 1-
en
0::::
-
!-
6
-
!-
w
~
7
w
~
a..
w
~
.,
9
- r-
f-
3. 70
( 58)
3.. 58
(57)
~
3. 07
(50)
:
4.27
(6i )
:
~
-
:r:
~
!-
...
~
4.34
(67)
~
~
~
I
~~
:
8
z
.........
-
(5 5 )
3.52
(56)
2 - !-
5
•
3. 50
;x
~
~
2 . 92JII
43
'X
'X
~
'X
g
'X
X
10 - !-
STATH1r'IS
11 - r-
3. 95
(61)
12 - 113 - 114
15
- t-
-
A
Sapel o Main Dock
B
Mouth of Barn Creek
c-
Marker " 162"
!}
Packing Hou s e Dock
~
Bend Above Pac ki ng House
F
Mouth of Ceda r Cr eek
G
H
Cr a b/Packing House Dock
Ceda r Cr eek Last Doc k
1-
>
>
16 - rA
FIGURE 18 :
B
c
D
E
F
G
No r t hern Sampling Area D. O. P r ofile (mg/1) and
(% Satura tion) at Lo w Tide du ri n g Ju l y .
H
47
0 - r--
•
24.55
1
--
2
--
3
-
•
•
7. 92
31.76
•
25. ll
•
11.80
•
0::::
6
--
~
t-
1
126. 59
~
~~
7 --
8
-
31.76
,
74.46
7 4.
LLJ
:E:
~~~~~.
~1.78
~
LLJ
•
28 .44
~~
4 --
(/)
17.90
30. 65
-
5 --
•
7.36
/~6
60.6
-
:z:
-
9 --
::t:
t-
c...
10 - -
STATICllS
LLJ
0
11 - 12 13
-
14 -
75
~
-
~
Sapelo Main Dock
B
Mouth of Barn Creek
Marker "162"
D
E
F
G
H
~
~
A
c
~
15 16
~6 .
'
A
FIGURE 19:
B
c
D
E
Packing House Dock
Bend Above Packing House
Mouth of Cedar Creek
Crab/Packing House Doc k
Cedar Creek Last Dock
F
G
H
Northern Sampling Area NH4-N (}Jg/1) Profile at Low Tide
during July.
48
0 - .--
•
•
29
28.8
1 -
~
2
-
1-
3
-
~
•
29
•
•
28.9
29
4 - 15 (/)
0:::
w
t-
6
~
8 -
~
z:
-
9 - 1-
a..
L.LJ
Q
29.1
!
28
~
28.8
~
~~
~
I
~
~
29
'
'
~ 29
.I"
:X::
t-
...
l
~
w
:;:::
~
28 . 8
~
~,
.;
'X.
>t"',t
10 - 111 -
)\,"
28 . 9
STATIONS
~
- 1-
14 - 115 -
A
Sapelo Main Dock
B
Mouth of Barn Creek
c
12 - 13
•
29
29.1
29
-
7 -
•
•
29 . 1
Marker "162"
D
E-
Packing House Dock
F
G
H
Mouth of Cedar Creek
Bend Above Packing House
Cr a b/Packing House Dock
Cedar Creek Last Doc k
~
~
A
16 - 1A
FIGURE 20 t
B
c
Northern Sampl ing Area
Tide During July .
D
E
Temperatur~
F
G
H
(°C) Profile a t High
49
0
-.--
•
•
26
22
•
•
•
20
20
•
22
21
•
•
21
:.>1
1 - f.23
--
4
-
5 U)
0::::
w
1-
~
6
~
~
w
::::
,
8 -
-
~
10 -
~
11 - 12 13
-
14 15 16
-
~
~
~
21
I
26
~
~
22
J ~
~
•
~ ~ 21.8
~
:J:::
w
•
~
9 -0...
22
4
z:
1-
411
20
--
7 -
21
~
22
STATI ONS
~
?'
A
B
~
~
~~
~
~
).
~
~
~
~
~
)(
1X
~
~
~
Mouth of Barn Creek
c
Marker " 162"
D
Packing Hou se Dock
E
Bend Above Packing House
F
G
H
Mouth of Cedar Creek
Crab/Packing House Dock
Cedar Cr eek Last Doc k
)
><
~
;x
)C
: "'
;><
».
~ \o.::'>;:
•. '-<'
B
c
l
A
~
' ·.
~~»>~
~x:
t-
FIGURE 21 :
Sapelo Main Doc k
v
D
E
F
0
G
H
Northern Samp l i n g Area Salinity ( /oo) Profile at High
Tide Dur ing J u l y.
so
0
- r-
1 -
f-
-
f-
2
3 -
~
4 -
~
5 (/)
0::::
w
..._
5 . 5]
5.49
(86)
(83)
(81)
•
4 .87
( 7 2)
7 - f-
- f-
•
4 . 97
(7 4)
4.75
(70)
........
~
6 - ._.
8
•
4.81
(7 2)
~
~
•
4.65
•
4 . .19
(6 9)
( 6H )
..
4 . 51
(67)
4.21
(62)
ji
5 . 69
(86)
~
~
~
z:
-
•
•
5.09
(7 5)
w
::E
•
5.64
x:•
~~
~
4 . 45
(6 7)
~
.._s. 44
9 - f-
(80)
:I::
t0-
w
~
11
-<
12 -
.
4.68
(70)
10 - f~~~; .
STATIONS
'>>''>
:*~· ~ (,(-;:··><
~
13 - f14
-
~
A
Sapelo Main Dock
B
Mou t h of Barn Creek
c
Marker " 162"
D
Packing House Dock
E
Bend Above Packing· Hous e
F
G
H
Mou th of Cedar Cr eek
15 - f16 -
Crab/Pac king House Doc k
Cedar Creek Last Doc k
''X'
)'.
v
~
'
A
PlGURE 22:
B
c
D
E
Nor ther n Sampling Area D.O. (mg/1) and
Profile at High Tide Dur ing July .
F
G
(%Satu ration)
H
51
0 -.--
•
41.7 5
(/')
0:::
1
-r-
2
-1-
3
-f-
4
-~
5
-~
6
-f-
7
-r-
•
so. 16
•
55 . 61
•
•
43 . 41
4H.95
LJ..J
.......
76 .13
51. 73
~
,
119.94
~~
~ ~
108.85
8 --
1CL
9
-f-
10
-f-
53.95
84.45
STATIONS
LJ..J
Cl
•
'3 g . ') J
39.53
LJ..J
1-
•
47 . H'>
11
-~
14
Sapelo Main Dock
B
Mouth of Barn Creek
C = Marker
12 -13
A
D
E
-r-
-~
x
15 --
"162"
Packing House Dock
Bend Above Packing House
f
Mouth of Cedar Creek
G
H
Crab/Packing House Dock
Cedar Creek Last Dock
X
X
16
-~
;><
A
FIGURE 23 :
B
c
D
Northern Samp l ing Area NH4 - N
Tide During July.
E
(~g / 1)
F
G
Profile at High
H
•
27
•
25
•
23
•
22
22
I
•
23
•
23
•
23
53
0-
•
r-
28.3
56
•
•
•
27.8
•
•
28.6
28
28
28 . 8
•
28.6
1- -
2- -
27.9
3- 4- -
5- ~. 8
6- f28 . 2
(/)
~
7-
~
8-
~
9-
-
w
1LJ.J
~
z:
-
X.
'?'
X:,
~·
10- -
::c:
1CL
w
t=::l
»~~~
.
27.5
11- 12- f-
&J
13- .._
14- ~
2~
...
)<
STATIONS
Marke r "19"
A
B
27 .8
27
15- f.-
X
16- f.-
Marker " 24"
c
Lanier Bridge
D
Processi ng Plant
E
Fourt h Avenu e
F
Prince Street
G
Range Harker
17- f18- ......
A
FIGURE 28:
B
c
D
E
Southern Sampling Area Temperature
at Hig h Tide During July .
F
G
(OC) Profile
•
0-r-
28
1-
~
2-
~
•
28
•
26
•
•
25
•
28
24
•
23
26
3- 4-
~
5-
~
26
•
6- r2&
(/)
0::.
7- r-
LLJ
~
8-
~
9-
~
10-
~
11-
~
LLJ
~
z
.........
::X::
~
o..._
29
Q
12 - I-
25
TAT IONS
,.t"><
1 3- r1 4 - r-
I
.
LLJ
28
A
Marker "19"
B
Marker " 24"
c
30
Lanier Bridge
Process ing Plant
1 5 - r-
D
E
Prince St r eet
16 -
~
F
G
17 -
-
Fourth Av enue
Range l1arker
18- A
FIGURE 29 :
B
c
D
Southern Sampling Area Salinity
at Hig h Tid e Dur i ng Jul y.
F
E
(0
G
/oo) Profile
57
0 - r-
58
•
•
6.10
(91)
6.17
1-
(93)
•
5.83
(87)
•
•
•
5.31
(81)
5. 11
( 75)
•
4.7 3
3.15
(70)
(47)
~
2- -
5 . 22
(77 )
3--
4-
-
5-6-
3.15
(47)
-
4.27
~
(63) W'"'
)<
(/')
cc:::
Ll.J
I-
7-
v~?<.
0
~
~
X
8 - 1-
. ':'><
w
~
9-
1-
. .X,
z:
10 - -
5. 72
(85)
::J::
I-
a..
w
0
11 - -
'
~vS. 36
"' (79)
~
.
·"'·
A
STATI ONS
Marker "19"
B
Marker "24"
><;XX .
-
14 - 1-
J
t. .
~
1 2- 13 -
< .
5.28
(79)
~ f6 . 46
~~( 96)
15 - 16 - -
c
Lanier Bridge
D
Pr ocessing Plant
E
Fourth Avenue
F
Prince Street
G
Range Hark e r
17 - 18 - A
FIGURE 30:
B
c
D
E
F
G
Southern Sampling Area D. O. Profile (mg/1) and
(% saturation) at High Tide During J uly .
o-~
•
•
79.45
42 . 85
•
94.98
•
92.76
•
35.09
•
•
68 . 36
ll. 80
1-2- -
3-
594 .78
I
~
~
4- 5-
~
427.74
6- f-
f'
213.10
C.l)
a:::
7- -
l.J..J
1-
8- f-
w
::E
9- -
~
10- f::::c
I-
a...
w
Cl
668 .36
11- f-
i.4
12- r--
994.::37
... ...
"It
X
13-
1..
14- f-
~
r 319 . 98
15- f16-
)(
~
'll
STATIONS
Marker "19"
A
B
1z'J . 82
~
v
Marker "24"
c
Lani e r Bridge
D
Processing Plan t
E
F
G
Fourth Av enue
Prince Street
Range 1-far ker
17- f18-
'<
~
·"·
r ~.w~-
A
FIGURE 31:
~ '~
' ~'\.'><:<
'.
'x-;:''
·
B
· ~~~~·<"·
c
'.
D
Southern Samp ling Area NH4-N
at High Tide During July.
F
E
(~g/ 1)
G
Profile
59
60
0 -.-
•
29
•
29. 4
•
29
•
•
28 . 1
28 .5
•
29 . 3
•
•
29 . 5
29
1 _,__
2 _,__
29
3
-I-
4
-I-
5
-I-
~
29.3
1
29
0:::
6 ---
w
~
w
A
29.6
7 ---
8
-
~€
,
28
(/)
. 4
I>
-1-
28 . 5
6
~
28.2 >
<
10
'9
1"'-~
-1-
9 ---
~ X
.
'
:
:
STATIONS
'
11
_,__
•
)
)
12
)
13
14
'
29.4
-I-
A
B
C-
Marker "162"
D
Packing House Dock
E
Bend Above Packing House
F
Mouth of Cedar Creek
G
Crab/Packing House Dock
H
Cedar Creek Last Dock
Sapelo Main Dock
l>iouth of Barn Creek
15 --16
-~
A
FIGURE 32:
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
Northern Sampling Area Temperature (°C) Profile at Low
Tide During August.
61
0 - .--
•
'2.4
•
•
25
26
•
•
26
'2.5
•
26
•
•
'2.')
2'>
1 - f-
-
~
3 -
~
4
1-
2
-
,
a:::
6
-
;
1-
7 -
:
:
~
~
w
~
8 -
~
0....
w
0
/')&
2s
9
10
- r-
:
26
::c
I-
~-
.... ~
z
-
.;
26
27
~
,
25
~
~
w
~
~
5 -(/)
~
26
~
:
:
;
f-
~
STATIONS
•
11
12
13
14
15
-
f-
A
Sapelo Main Dock
B
Mouth of Barn Creek
- 1-
c
Packing House Dock
- 1-
D
E
F
Mouth of Cedar Creek
G
H-
Crab/Packing House Dock
24
-~
-
Marker "162"
Bend Above Pac king House
Cedar Creek La s t Dock
~
16 - 1A
FIGURE 33 :
B
c
D
E
F
G
Nor thern Sampling Area Salini t y (O/oo) Profile at Low
Tide Dur ing Augu st.
H
62
0 - .-1 - .._
2
-
3
- ......
•
5. 34
(80)
•
4.85
(74)
•
4 . 11
(62)
•
•
3 .3 7
(51)
3. 26
(49)
•
•
4.42
(66)
4 . 49
(68)
•
3 . 69
(55)
f-
'3.22
( /1g)
l
3.23
(49)
4 -
~
1-
3 .4 0
f
5 - 1-
(SO)
~~
2. 50
(/)
a:=
6 - 1-
w
1-
7 - 1-
l.J.J
E
8 - 1-
z
-
9 - 1-
::::t:
10....
w
0
10 - .._
,
4 .86
(75)
~
14
~
/!
0 ,
~
C)(
( 3(\ )
- 1-
STAT IONS
;><
~
)<
~
>
>
>
>
~
~
- 1-
'
;><
;.~
)
4 . 68
{70)
- 1-
-
g~
~
~
:X
~
~
~
~~
x
~
2 . )7)
AB
Sapelo Main Dock
Mouth of Barn Creek
c
Marker "162"
D Packing House Dock
E Bend Above Packing House
F Mouth of Cedar Creek
G Crab/Packing House Dock
H = Cedar Creek Last Doc k
15 - 116
.18
(63)
<,N"(,
)<
13
~
~ !~
IT(
:
:
:
11 - 112
><
(38)
....,
)<
1-
~
'
A
FIGURE 34 :
>-
)\
B
c
D
E
Northern Sampling Area D. O . (mg/ 1 ) and
Profi le at Low Tid e During Aug ust .
F
(%
G
Saturation)
H
63
0 - ,.....
•
43.96
•
30.10
•
•
86.66
55.61
•
66.15
•
23.45
•
•
10R.29
40 . 64
1 - 12 3
1--
(/)
0::::
~
-
~
6
t-
7 -
~
~
~
()!-
~~·
9 - 1-
~
~
'
~
8 - 1-
~J
,
104.41
86 . 11
z
-
44 . 52
.
w
::::
~
~
w
~
98.R6
4 - ._
5 -
91. 65
,
- 1-
47 . 35
'c.."
::X::
t-
a..
w
0
10 - 1-
?
STATIONS
-~
11 12
13
14
A
B
~
Sapelo Ma in Doc k
Mouth of Ba rn Creek
- 1-
c-
-
DEF-
~
-~
Packing House Dock
Bend Above Packing Hous e
Mouth of Cedar Creek
Crab/Packing Hous e Dock
G
H
47.29
Marker "162"
Cedar Creek Last Dock
15 - 116
-
~
I
A
FIGURE 35:
B
c
D
E
F
G
Northern Sampling Area NH4-N (lJg/1) Profile at Low
Ti de During August .
H
64
0
-
1 -
(/)
a::
r-
•
•
•
28.7
29.3
29
•
29
•
29.1
•
29
•
28 . 9
~
2
-
~
3
-
~
4
-
~
5
-
6
•
29
,
~
29
28 . 8
29 . 2
..
~
LJ.J
1-
7 -
~
28 . 9
LJ.J
~
8 -
29 . 2
~
z:
-
9 - .....
::X::
1o.._
10
-
LJ.J
0
11 12 -
~
-
~
29
•
~
:•
STATIOOS
A
B
29 . 2
29 . 4
- ..._
15 -
~
16 -
~
Mouth of Barn Cr eek '
c
1-
13 - 14
Sape lo Main Dock
Marke r " 162"
D
E
Packing House Dock
F
Mouth of Cedar Creek
G
Crab/Pac ki ng House Dock
H
Cedar Cr eek Las t Doc k
Bend Above Pack ing
X '
y
,')
?':
A
FIGURE 36 :
B
c
D
E
F
G
Northern Sampling Area Temperature (°C) Profile at
Hiqh T ide durinq Auqust .
H
H ouse
65
0 - r--
•
27
•
•
•
•
25
20
22
•
20
•
•
20
20
18
-1 - -
2
-
1--
3 --
(/)
0:::
w
I-
4 -
~
5
-
-
6 -
22
{
~
8 - f--
..
21
~
•
~
~
7 - ,__
w
:12::
20
18
.,
30
z:
,._.
9 - ,_
25
~
ICL
w
0
10
-
-
11 - -
12 - 13
-
,__
26
22
14
15
- ,__
-
A
STATIONS
Sapelo Ma in Doc k
B-
Mou th of Bar n Creek
c
Mar ker " 162"
D
E
Packing House Dock
F
G
Mou th of Ced a r Creek
H
Cedar Creek Last Dock
Bend Above Packi ng House
Crab/ Packing House Dock
~
16 - T
A
FIGURE 37:
B
c
D
Northern Sampling Area Sa li nity
High Tide during August .
F
E
(0
G
/oo) Profile at
H
66
0 - r--
1
--
•
•
5. 34
(80)
4.70
(71)
•
•
4 .1 2
(60)
•
3. 73
3. 52
( 52)
( 55 )
•
•
3. 62
('3 3)
3. 37
( 49)
•
3 .17
(4 5)
2 - ...,...
3 - f4
-
f-
3.14
( 46)
5
(/)
0:::
6
w
r-
7
-
r--
-
1-
r
-
f-
~
~
w
::E
8 - f-
z
-
9
3.42
(50)
-
1-
(39)
...
~
~
4 . 47
(69)
~
2.90
"
~
3.24
( 46)
~
=
,
·~
3. 36
(51)
=c
rCL
10 -
-
-
f-
w
0
11
. ), ··.
'
STATIO'JS
A
B
12 - f4 .38
(66)
3 . 91
(5 9)
13 - 114
15
- f-
-
Sapelo Main Dock
Mouth of Barn Creek
c-
Marker "16 2"
D
Packing House Dock
E
Bend Above Packing House
F
Mouth of Cedar Creek
G
Crab/Packing House Doc k
H
Cedar Creek Last Dock
1-
16 - 1B
A
FIGURE 3 8:
c
D
E
F
G
North ern Sampling. Area D. O. Profile (mg/ 1) and
(%
Sa t uration) at High Tide during August
H
67
0 - .--
•
•
6.25
1 -
I-
2-
~
•
19.56
27.33
•
51.7 3
•
35 .09
•
37 . 86
•
50.06
•
39 . 53
3 -4 -45 . 63
5 --
p
(/)
0:::::
6
~
38 . 97
--
62 . 26
LJ.J
t-
7 --
w
:;:::::
-
~
9 -
~
8
z:
-
,
~
~
::c
t0...
10
41.7 5
17.35
46 .18
~
-~
STATIONS
w
0
11 -
12 13
-
~
~
-
68.92
45 . 07
14
-
-
A
Sapelo Main Doc k
B
Mouth of Barn Creek
c
Marker "162"
D
Packing House Dock
E
Bend Above Pac king House
F
Mouth of Cedar Creek
G
H
Crab /Packing House Dock
Cedar Creek Last Dock
15 - 16 - rI
A
FIGURE 39 :
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
Northern Sampl i ng Area NH4-N ( l! g / 1) Prof i le at High Ti d e
during August.
0 --
68
•
•
•
29 . 3
29
28 . 8
1- -
•
29 . 6
•
•
29 . 7
29 . 6
•
30
29.5
2- 3 - 14- 1-
5- 16- 1U)
cr::..
29
~
7- 129
LLJ
I-
...IIIII
~
W'l
8 - 1-
LJ.J
~
9- 1-
=
-
10 - 1-
::::c
I-
a..
11- 1-
29
29
LJ.J
0
12- 11 3- -
(XXX
28.8 .A
~~
~ ~XX
STATIONS
Marker ' '1 9"
A
B
28 . 6
Ma rker "2 4"
14- -
c
Lan i er Brid ge
Pr ocessing Plant
15- -
D
E
F
Prince Stree t
G
Range Harke r
16 - ....
17 -
Fourth Avenue
~
18-1(',.
A
FIGURE 40:
B
c
D
E
South e rn Sampling Area Temperature
Low Tide Duri n g Augu st .
F
( oc)
G
Profile at
a-.- •
26
1-
•
•
26
24
-
•
22
•
•
•
24
24
23
22
2- 3- -
4- -
5- 6- U)
0:::.
w
I-
28
7- -
~
~
25
8- -
w
::E
9- -
z
10- ::I:
I-
a....
w
~
~
27
25
11- 12...., -
""
26
.x x ;
~
STATIONS
Marker "19"
~
1314-
~
~
•
A
B
29
c
1-
Lanier Bridge
D
E
F
G
15-16-17-
Marker "24"
Pr ocessing Plant
Fourth Avenue
Prince Street
Range l1ark er
..,.
-
18- A
FIGURE 41:
B
c
D
E
F
G
Southern Sampling Area Salinity (O/oo ) Profile at
Low Tide Durin g August.
69
0 -r-
70
1-
4 .68
•
4 . 71
•
4 .4R
(70)
(7 1 )
(67)
•
•
3. 9R
(60)
f.-
3.9R
•
4 . 40
(60)
(67)
•
•
4 . R7
(74)
3 . 56
('SP,)
2-
~
3-
~
4- r-5- r-3 . 14
( 48)
6- r-C./)
cr:.
w
I-
~
7- r-
?5
3 . 35
( 5 1) 1111111
8-
.,._
w
~
9-
~
~
10- ._.
:::c
I-
a...
w
0
3. 83
11- -
(58}
(70)
12- -
1·~.,
1415-
~
4.67
3. 91
(60)
~
ST,'\TIONS
~
~
A
B
~
·~ Y'4. 68
~ ( 71)
~
~
16-..._
17-
~
18-
~
V'
>.X XX.
tff;.
Harker " 19"
Marker I • •J_ ... tl
I
c
J.;t n
0
l' r(oc~· ~ ,.:
i n g l' l :tr t
E
F
G
r ,,.,rlh
:\\" l' I)LJ(!
l' r i
Strt-t-t
i
o!
r n r i d t: l'
11e l '
~~. l ! ) ~: l~
>tark l"'r
··- A
FIGURE 42:
B
c
0
E
F
Southern Sampli ng Area D. O. Profile (mg/ 1) a nd
( % Saturation) at Low T ide Duri ng Au gu st.
G
a-.- •
•
26.22
47.85
1-
•
41. 5
~
•
50 . 72
•
•
•
7.36
5. 15
59 . 4 9
:n .YH
2- 13-
~
4- r-
5-
i-
6- (/)
c.c::
16 4.Wl
....
7- -
11111111
197 . 02
LLl
1-
8- t-
x
w
:c
=
x
9- -
~
x
10- -
~
::J::
1CL
w
0
r~
11 - -
~
127 .7
~
~
QQ
128 .81
v v
•v v
68.92
12 - 1-
><
;xxxxxx;
X
STATIONS
13- 1-
~
A
B
1 x x xxx
71.69
14-1-
c
1 5- 1-
D
E
F
G
16-1-
Ma rker "19"
Marker "24"
Lani er Br idge
Pr ocessing Plant
Fourth Avenue
Pr ince Street
Ra n ge l.ofa r ke r
v
17- 1-
Q
18- rA
FIGURE 43:
B
c
D
E
F
G
South ern Sampling Area NH4 - N ( JJ g/ 1 ) P r ofi l e at Lo w Tid e
During Augus t .
71
•
0
72
28
•
29. '>
•
29 . 2
•
29.9
•
•
30.8
30 . 8
•
3J. 3
1
29 . 3
2
3
4
29 . 2
5
29
6
(/)
Cl::
7
LI..J
I-
8
LI..J
E:
9
;;:::
10
28 . 9
28 . 8
::c
I-
a..
w
Cl
11
29.2
12
13
A
STATIONS
Marker "19"
B
Marker "24"
14
c
Processin g Plant
15
D
E
Prince Street
16
F
G
29
Lanier Bridge
Fourth Avenue
Range Harker
17
18
A
F IGURE 4 4:
B
c
D
Southern Sampling Area Temperature
High Tide During August.
E
( oc)
F
G
Pr ofile a t
•
0--
29
1-
~
2-
~
•
26
•
25
•
23
•
24
•
22
•
73
23
25
3- 4-
~
25
•
5- ......
(/)
ez:::
w
t-
6-
~
7-
f.-
8-
~
25
?<
><
)<
w
~
g..;. ~
)<
)<
z
10 ::c
ta_
w
~
1 1·-
-
I
29
)<
)<
30
)<
.J
~
25
12- 1314-
STATIONS
~
15- f.-
16 - f.1 7-
30
A
B
Marker " 24 "
c
Lanier Bridge
D
Processing Plant
E
F
Fou rth Avenue
Prince Stre et
G
Range Ha r ker
Marker " 19"
~
18-1A
FIGURE 45:
B
c
D
E
F
G
Southern Sampling Ar e a Salinity (O j oo) Profil e at
High Tide Dur i ng August .
0
74
1
•
6.10
(92)
•
5.37
•
4.78
( 8 2)
( 7 3)
•
4.36
(66)
5.23
•
4.68
6.7 3
(80)
( 7 2)
( l 05)
3.69
(56)
2.90
•
•
4 . 63
( 7 0)
2
3
4
5
(44)
6
7
8
9
10
5 .25
( 8 0)
4.75
::I:
1CL
w
Q
( 7 4) .
11
12
X.
STATIONS
13
14
15
6 .3 1
16
(97)
A
B
Marker "24"
C
Lanier Bridge
D
Processing Plan t
E
Fourth Avenue
F
P rince Street
G
Range t-tarke r
Marker "19"
17
18
A
PICtiRE 4G:
B
c
D
E
F
Southern Samplinq 1\rc.:l D . O . l'rofi lc (rnq/1)
(% Saturation) at High Tide During August.
G
und
0
•
.L4H
•
14.02
•
I 0. 14
•
•
11.2)
102.7')
•
43 . 96
•
7 . g2
1
40 . 0H
2
3
4
115 . 50
5
11 6.52
6
(/)
a:::
7
w
I-
8
w
~
9
::2::
.......
10
25 . 66
256. 95
:l::
I-
c...
w
~
11
22. )4
12
STATIONS
13
A
Marker "19"
B
Marker "24"
c
14
'
15
16
9. 5R
Lani e r Bridge
D
E
Processing Pl ant
F
Princ e Str ee t
G
Range Harke r
Fourth Avenue
17
18
A
FIGURE 47:
B
c
D
E
F
G
Southe r n Sampli ng Area NH4- N ( ~ g/ l) Prof il e at Hi gh
Tide Du r i ng Augu st.
75
TABLES
TABLE 1.
MICROBIOLOGICAL LEVELS OF THE DUPLIN RIVER, INITIAL HYDROGRAPHIC SURVEY
Aerobic
Plate Counts
20C org/ml
Aerobic
Plate Counts
35C org/ml
Marine Agar
Plate Counts
org/ml
MPN
Coliforms
org/100 ml
MPN Fecal
Coli forms
org/100 ml
Mouth of Duplin
River
345
260
3.42 X 104
24
9.3
Sapelo Main Dock
340
265
1. 40 X 104
7.5
3.9
Mouth of Barn
Creek
745
195
6.80 X 10 3
9.3
9.3
1.29 X 10 3
315
1.20 X 104
46
7.5
295
2.05 X 10 4
21
15
Station
Sawdust Pile
Duplin River
Northern Bend of
Duplin River
611
-..J
(J'I
-.1
-.1
TABLE 2.
MICROBIOLOGICAL LEVELS OF SHELLBLUFF CREEK, INITIAL HYDROGRAPHIC SURVEY
Station
Aerobic
Plate Counts
20C org/ml
Aerobic
Plate Counts
35C org/ml
Marine Agar
Plate Counts
org/ml
MPN
Coli forms
org/100 ml
MPN Fecal
Coli forms
org/100 ml
Mouth of
Shellbluff Creek
Marker 11 162"
320
231
5.90
103
46
0.45
Telephone Pole
1/4 Mile West of
Marker "162"
240
174
5.05 X 103
>240
0.93
Packing House
Station
447
194
6.40 X 10 3
110
24
Bend Above
Packing Houses
550
163
5.50 X 103
110
24
X
TABLE 3.
MICROBIOLOGICAL LEVELS OF CEDAR CREEK, INITIAL HYDROGRAPHIC SURVEY
Station
Mouth of
Cedar Creek
Ol d Boat
Aerobic
Plat e Coun t s
20C org/ ml
1 65
1.27 X 103
MPN
Marin e Agar
Plate Counts
org/ ml
Coli forms
org/ 100 ml
MPN Fecal
Co li forms
o rg/ 1 00 ml
1 06
5 . 15 X 10 3
21
2.3
625
4.65 X 103
>240
24
Aerobic
P l ate Counts
35C org/ ml
Dock Between Crab
Pl ant and Packing
Hou se
9 35
690
6.5 0 X 10 3
>240
24
South of Red Dock
42 0
226
5 . 85 X 1 03
110
7.5
Last Dock
Cedar Creek
23 0
178
5.00 X 1 0 3
7.5
4.3
-..J
00
._J
\0
TABLE 4.
MICROBIOLOGICAL LEVELS OF THE BRUNSWICK ESTUARY, INITIAL HYDROGRAPHIC SURVEY
Station
Aerobic
Plate Counts
20C org/ml
Aerobic
Plate Counts
35C org/ml
Marine Agar
Plate Counts
org/ml
MPN
Coli forms
ors/100 ml
MPN Fecal
Coliforms
org/100 ml
Marker "19"
276
252
2.54 X 10 3
24
4.3
Marker "22"
350
205
2.34 X 103
46
2.3
Marker "24"
370
285
3.55 X 10 3
15
4.3
Lanier Bridge
525
555
1.81 X 103
110
9.3
Processing Plant
Discharge Pipe
660
715
3.52 X 103
~240
15
East River at
Fourth Street
116
975
1.58 X 10 4
>240
24
East River at
Prince Street
705
675
7.80 X 103
~240
15
2.20 X 104
>240
46
East River
Range Marker
1.42 X 103
1. 48 X 103
East River at
K Street
505
620
4.95 X 10 3
>240
>240
End of East River
455
290
4.10 X 10 3
>240
46
0
c:o
TABLE 5.
CHEMICAL ANALYSES OF PACKING HOUSE AND PROCESSING PLANT EFFLUENTS
STATION
E!!
BOD mg/1
SUSPENDED
SOLIDS mg/1
TURBIDITY
FTU
AMMONIA NITROGEN
llg/1
Packing House
Effluent
7.89
421
13
5
179
Processing Plant
Effluent
(July Low Tide)
7.56
296
119
30
2046
Processing Plant
Effluent
(July High Tide)
7.64
255
60
24
1616
Processing Plant
Effluent
(August Low Tide)
8.50
281
98
--
2446
Processing Plant
Efflue nt
(August High Tide)
7.71
270
80
32
2649
TABLE 6 .
PHYSICAL ANALYSES OF PACKING HOUSE AND PROCESSING PLANT EFFLUENTS
TEMPERATURE
.-t
00
DISSOLVED
OXYGEN mg/1
% OXYGEN
SATURATION
2
4.28
56
26
0
7.56
92
Processing Plant
Effluent
(July High Tide)
--
--
7.46
Processing Plant
Effluent
(August Low Tide)
23
3
5.60
67
Processing Plant
Effluent
(August High Tide)
25
0
7.56
92
STATION
oc
Packing House
Effluent
21
Processing Plant
Effluent
(July Low Tide)
SALINITY 0/ oo
('.!
en
TABLE 7.
MICROBIOLOGICAL ANALYSES OF PACKING HOUSE AND PROCESSING PLANT EFFLUENTS
MPN Fecal
Coli forms
org/100 ml
Aerobic
Plate Counts
20C org/ml
Aerobic
Plate Counts
35C org/ml
Marine Agar
Plate Counts
org/ml
Packing House
Effluent
3.85 X 103
1. 35 X 104
1.55 X 104
150
43
Processing Plant
Effluent
(July Low Tide)
3.70
10 5
2.25 X 10 5
2.35 X 105
~24,000
2,400
Processing Plant
Effluent
(July High Tide)
4.75 X 106
1. 95
X
10 6
4.35 X 10 6
~2,400
1,100
Processing Plant
Effluent
(August Low Tide)
6.60 X 10 5
4.05
X
10 5
6.60 X 10 5
~240,000
11,000
Processing Plant
Effluent
(August High Tide)
2.31 X 10 5
1. 27
X
10 5
1.53 X 10 5
110,000
2,400
Station
X
MPN
Coliforms
org/100 ml
TABLE 8.
MICROBIOLOGICAL LEVELS, NORTHERN SAMPLING AREA AT LOW TIDE DURING JULY
Station
C")
CXl
Aerobic
Plate Counts
20C org/ml
Aerobic
Plate Counts
35C org/ml
Marine Agar
Plate Counts
org/ml
MPN
Coli forms
org/100 ml
MPN Fecal
Coli forms
org/100 ml
Duplin River
Main Dock Sapelo
225
185
4 . 70
X
10 3
2.3
2.3
Duplin River
Barn Creek
405
600
5.85
X
10 3
2.3
0.9
Mouth of
Shellbluff Creek
Narker "162"
365
255
8.60
X
103
24
24
Shellbluff Creek
Packing House
Station
375
226
1.02
X
104
75
9
Shellbluff Creek
Bend above
Packing House
505
285
1.13
X
104
21
2
Mouth of Cedar Creek
385
179
5.35
X
10 3
24
4.2
Cedar Creek
Dock Between Crab
Plant & Packing House
475
217
8.15 X 103
14
4
Cedar Creek
Last Dock
550
235
9.15
10 3
110
24
X
.;J'
w
TABLE 9.
CHEMICAL PARAMETERS, NORTHERN SAMPLING AREA AT LOW TIDE DURING JULY
pH
Station
Surface Bottom
BOD
mg/1
Surface Bottom
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
mg/1
Surface Bottom
TURBIDITY
FTU
Surface Bottom
AMMONIA NITROGEN
flg/1
Surface Bottom
Duplin River
Main Dock Sapelo
7.32
7.44
2.31
1.48
88
206
7
99
20
61
Duplin River
Barn Creek
7.41
7.32
1. 70
1.11
54
97
6
32
6
30
Mouth of
Shellb1uff Creek
Marker "162"
7.33
7.41
1.19
1. 24
42
429
9
180
26
61
Shel1bluff Creek
Packing House
Station
7.35
7.28
0.99
1.06
102
73
8
20
21
50
Shel1b1uff Creek
Bend above
Packing House
7.31
7.20
1.59
0.08
61
110
8
36
10
104
Mouth of Cedar Creek
7.50
7.43
1.02
1.99
58
134
19
47
6
25
Cedar Creek
Dock Between Crab
Plant & Packing House
7.37
7.32
1.53
1.44
58
90
20
30
15
18
Cedar Creek
Last Dock
7 .18
7.23
1.92
1.51
--
90
--
22
23
26
TABLE 10.
MICROBIOLOGICAL LEVELS, NORTHERN SAMPLING AREA AT HIGH TIDE DURING JULY
Station
Aerobic
Plate Counts
20C org/ml
Aerobic
Plate Counts
35C org/ml
Marine Agar
Plate Counts
org/ml
MPN
Co1iforms
org/100 m1
MPN Fecal
Coli forms
org/100 ml
Duplin River
Main Dock Sapelo
395
232
3.65 X 10 3
110
15
Duplin River
Barn Creek
435
260
4.71 X 10 3
9.3
1.5
Mouth of
Shellbluff Creek
Marker "162"
560
525
4.50 X 103
7.5
3.9
Shellbluff Creek
Packing House
Station
320
305
3.85 X 10 3
46
24
Mouth of Cedar Creek
295
253
4.25 X 103
24
4.3
Cedar Creek
Dock Between Crab
Plant & Packing House
600
366
6.40 X 10 3
110
24
Cedar Creek
Last Dock
645
435
7.10
10 3
24
24
Shellb1uff Creek
Bend above
Packing House
11'1
co
X
\0
CX)
TABLE 11.
CHEMICAL PARAMETERS, NORTHERN SAMPLING AREA AT HIGH TIDE DURING JULY
pH
Station
Surface Bottom
BOD
mg/1
Surface Bottom
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
mg/1
Surface Bottom
TURBIDITY
FfU
Surface Bottom
AMMONIA NITROGEN
lJg/1
Surface Bottom
Duplin River
Main Dock Sapelo
7. 71
7.80
0.54
1.42
38
670
20
276
42
109
Duplin River
Barn Creek
7.75
7.70
0.96
1.42
80
144
10
66
56
77
Mouth of
Shellbluff Creek
Marker "162"
7.71
7.62
0.96
1.61
51
196
8
34
56
76
Shellbluff Creek
Packing House
Station
7.56
7.46
o. 74
0.44
32
142
9
58
49
84
Shellbluff Creek
Bend above
Packing House
7.51
7.44
0.67
1.90
81
436
8
146
43
120
Mouth of Cedar Creek
7.40
7.52
1.05
1.48
88
72
2
22
48
40
Cedar Creek
Dock Between Crab
Plant & Packing House
7.45
7.43
1.05
0.99
67
32
22
25
55
52
Cedar Creek
Last Dock
7.38
7.40
0.89
1.12
62
92
24
36
40
54
TABLE 12.
MICROBIOLOGICAL LEVELS, SOUTHERN SAMPLING AREA AT LOW TIDE DURING JULY
Station
Marker "19"
St. Simons Sound
247
Aerobic
Plate Counts
35C org/ml
838
Marine Agar
Plate Counts
org/ml
MPN
Coli forms
org/100 ml
MPN Fecal
Coli forms
org/100 ml
l. 89 X 10 3
0.3
0.3
Marker "24"
St. Simons Sound
2.40 X 103
3.27 X 103
6.20 X 10 4
<0.3
<0.3
Sidney Lanier
Bridge
1.37 X 103
2.65 X 10 3
3.02 X 10 3
4.3
4.3
Discharge Pipe
Seafood Processing
Plant
l. 71 X 10 4
2.25 X 10 4
4.45 X 10 4
.::_2,400
93
Fourth Avenue
East River
2.19 X 10 3
5.70 X 103
1.05 X 10 4
9.1
9.1
Prince Street
East River
6.75 X 10 3
5.75 X 10 3
4.06 X 10 5
240
93
390
400
1.56 X 10
43
15
Range Marker
East River
"'co
Aerobic
Plate counts
20C org/ml
4
Cl)
Cl)
TABLE 13.
CHEMICAL PARAMETERS, SOUTHERN SAMPLING AREA AT LOW TIDE DURING JULY
pH
Station
Surface Bottom
BOD
mg/1
Surface Bottom
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
mg/1
Surface Bottom
TURBIDITY
FTU
Surface Bottom
AMMONIA NITROGEN
lJg/1
Surface Bottom
Marker "19"
St. Simons Sound
7.79
7.98
0.68
1.54
105
182
5
35
22
34
Marker "24"
St. Simons Sound
7.75
7.80
0.86
0.80
50
157
5
30
14
45
Sidney Lanier
Bridge
7.69
7.70
0. 75
1.18
55
152
6
20
6
31
Discharge Pipe
Seafood Process ing
Plant
7.66
7.62
13.00
1.32
93
205
22
64
150
40
Fourth Avenue
East River
7.68
7.80
0.76
1.34
59
528
5
220
7
272
Prince Street
East River
7.74
7.81
1.68
1.19
82
118
4
93
182
128
Range Marker
East River
7.81
7 . 75
1.67
1.08
53
107
4
54
36
146
TABLE 14.
MICROBIOLOGICAL LEVELS, SOUTHERN SAMPLING AREA AT HIGH TIDE DURING JULY
Station
0)
Q)
Aerobic
Plate Counts
20C org/ml
Aerobic
Plate Counts
35C org/ml
Marine Agar
Plate Counts
org/ml _
MPN
Coli forms
org/100 ml
MPN Fecal
Coli forms
org/ 100 ml
Marker "19"
St. Simons Sound
205
157
4.85 X 10 3
4
<3
r.tarker "24"
St. Simons Sound
370
143
2.95
10 3
9
4
Sidney Lanier
Bridge
325
283
6 . 15 X 103
11
4
Discharge Pipe
Seafood Processing
Plant
790
535
1.22 X 10 4
460
93
9.65 X 103
15
15
240
23
240
93
Fourth Avenue
East River
3.90 X 10 3
Prince Stre et
East River
1.04 X 10 3
Range Marker
East River
3.50
X
10
3
2.08 X 103
815
3.15 X 10 3
X
1.13
X
10 4
1.87
X
10
4
0
0'1
TABLE 15.
CHEMICAL PARAMETERS, SOUTHERN SAMPLING AREA AT HIGH TIDE DURING JULY
pH
Station
Surface Bottom
BOD
mg/1
Surface Bottom
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
mg/1
Surface Bottom
TURBIDITY
FTU
Surface Bottom
AMMONIA NITROGEN
J,lg/1
Surface Bottom
Marker "19"
St. Simons Sound
7.80
7.94
0.84
1.07
104
234
34
112
65
236
Marker "24"
St. Simons Sound
7.85
7.86
0.89
1. 73
72
313
20
224
35
470
Sidney Lanier
Bridge
7.79
7.45
1.02
1.18
87
206
18
42
78
102
Discharge Pipe
Seafood Processing
Plant
7.60
7.65
0.88
1.95
64
94
21
174
76
421
Fourth Avenue
East River
7.61
7.64
0.67
2.27
29
633
6
252
29
689
Prince Street
East River
7.60
7.63
0.96
0.27
79
164
13
53
56
175
Range Marker
East River
7.73
7.53
1.35
1. 23
65
192
12
55
10
309
TABLE 16 .
MICROBIOLOGICAL LEVELS, NORTHERN SAMPLING AREA AT LOW TIDE DURING AUGUST
Station
.....
(j\
Aerobic
Plate Counts
20C org/ml
Aerobic
Plate Counts
35C org/ml
Marine Agar
Plate Counts
__ org/ml _
MPN
Coli forms
org:/100 ml
MPN Fecal
Coli forms
org/100 ml
Duplin River
Main Dock Sapelo
143
92
2.11 X 10 3
2.3
2.3
Duplin River
Barn Creek
760
316
6.70 X 103
9.3
9.3
Mouth of
Shellbluff Creek
Marker "162"
100
107
8.00 X 103
2.3
2.3
Shellbluff Creek
Packing House
Station
300
435
6.50 X 103
>240
110
Shellbluff Creek
Bend above
Packing House
670
305
7.70 X 10 3
46
24
Mouth of Cedar Creek
139
77
2.21 X 10 3
4.3
2.3
Cedar Creek
Dock Between Crab
Plant & Packing House
149
109
3.30 X 10 3
24
24
Cedar Creek
Last Dock
237
189
4.70 X 10 3
110
110
N
<:n
TABLE 17 .
CHEMICAL PARAMETERS, NORTHERN SAMPLING AREA AT LOW TIDE DURING AUGUST
pH
Station
Surface Bottom
BOD
mg/1
Surface Bottom
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
mg/1
Surface Bottom
TURBIDITY
FTU
Surface Bottom
AMMONIA NITROGEN
llg/1
Surface Bottom
Duplin River
Main Dock Sapelo
7. 80
7.87
1.04
2.09
68
187
8
126
44
86
Dupl in River
Bar n Creek
7 . 67
7.65
1.10
1.71
82
120
7
26
30
47
Mouth of
Shellbluff Creek
Marker "162"
7. 72
7. 56
1. 08
2. 75
104
173
7
81
87
99
Shellbluff Creek
Packing House
Station
7. 45
7.38
1.82
1.52
72
91
5
27
56
87
Shellbluf£ Creek
Bend above
Packing House
7. 71
7.60
1.41
1.47
95
166
4
75
66
104
Mouth of Cedar Creek
7. 73
7.51
0 . 89
3. 42
99
523
5
224
23
92
Cedar Creek
Dock Between Crab
Plant & Packing House
7.49
7.46
1.82
1.95
92
106
6
9
31
41
Cedar Creek
Last Dock
7.00
7.44
1.93
2.00
64
80
6
25
41
45
TABLE 18.
MICROBIOLOGICAL LEVELS, NORTHERN SAMPLING AREA AT HIGH TIDE DURING AUGUST
Aerobic
Plate Counts
20C org/ ml
Aerobic
Plate Counts
35C org/m1
Marine Agar
Plate Counts
org/ ml
Duplin River
Main Dock Sapelo
300
140
3.75 X 10 3
2.3
0.9
Duplin River
Barn Creek
445
190
4.15 X 10
3
4.3
4.3
Mouth of
Shellbluff Creek
Marker "162 1'
670
315
9.55 X 103
46
4.3
. Station
0'1
MPN Fecal
Coli forms
org/ 100 ml
She1lb1uff Creek
Packing House
Station
2.00 X 10 3
700
2.09 X 10 4
24
9.3
She11b1uff Creek
Bend above
Packing House
1. 78
10 3
750
2.43 X 10 4
>240
24
Mouth of Cedar Creek
1. 79 x 103
1.16
X
10 3
3.20 X 10 4
4.3
4.3
Cedar Creek
2.90 x 103
Dock Between Crab
Plant & Packing House
1. 31
X
10 3
2.70 X 10 4
46
46
10 4
>240
>240
Cedar Creek
Last Dock
M
MPN
Co1iforms
org/100 ml
X
2.90 x 103
1.63 X 10 3
1.05
X
~
"'
TABLE 19.
CHEMICAL PARAMETERS, NORTHERN SAMPLING AREA AT HIGH TIDE DURING AUGUST
pH
Station
Surface Bottom
BOD
mg/1
Surface Bottom
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
mg/1
Surface Bottom
TURBIDITY
FTU
Surface Bottom
AMMONIA NITROGEN
pg/1
Surface Bottom
Duplin River
Main Dock Sapelo
7.85
7. 91
1. 70
1.82
111
159
8
56
6
17
Duplin River
Barn Creek
7 . 82
7.77
1.57
1.53
70
477
7
132
20
70
Mouth of
Shellbluff Creek
Marker "162"
7.62
7.70
1.45
2.86
71
64
8
20
27
45
Shellbluff Creek
Packing House
Station
7.91
7 . 77
1.55
1.90
108
116
43
46
52
46
Shellbluff Creek
Bend above
Packing House
7.64
7.46
2.01
2.23
95
124
32
66
35
39
Mouth of Cedar Creek
7.44
7.38
--
1.83
111
200
40
104
38
62
Cedar Creek
Dock Between Crab
Plant & Packing House
7.39
7.32
1.84
1.34
142
135
41
46
50
46
Cedar Creek
Last Dock
7.31
7.42
1.86
1.77
90
110
34
41
40
42
TABLE 20.
MICROBIOLOGICAL LEVELS, SOUTHERN SAMPLING AREA AT LOW TIDE DURING AUGUST
Station
0)
Aerobic
Plate Counts
35C org/ml
Marine Agar
Plate Counts
org/ml
-
MPN
Coli forms
org/100 ml
MPN Fecal
Coli forms
org/100 ml
Marker "19"
St. Simons Sound
246
250
2.14 X 103
0.7
0.4
Marker 11 24"
St. Simons Sound
295
685
2.49 X 10 3
1.5
2.3
Sidney Lanier
Bridge
565
2.85 X 103
2.42 X 103
24
2.9
4.20 X 10 3
6 . 25 X 10 3
400
93
Discharge Pipe
Seafood Processing
Plant
U')
Aerobic
Plate Counts
20C org/ml
4.30 X 10 3
~2,
Fourth Avenue
East River
465
2.25 X 103
3.80 X 10 3
39
15
Prince Street
East River
700
1.82 X 10 3
2.03 X 103
28
15
Range Marker
East River
335
1.07 X 10 3
150
39
335
ID
0"1
TABLE 21 .
CHEMICAL PARAMETERS, SOUTHERN SAMPLING AREA AT LOW TIDE DURING AUGUST
pH
Station
Surface Bottom
BOD
mg/1
Surface Bottom
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
mg/1
Surface Bottom
TURBIDITY
FTU
Surface Bottom
AMMONIA NITROGEN
pg/1
Surface Bottom
Marker "19"
St. Simons Sound
7.67
7. 71
1.15
1.02
312
188
6
58
48
72
Marker "24"
St . Simons Sound
7.65
7. 60
0.79
1.38
64
236
6
100
26
69
Sidney Lanier
Bridge
7.53
7.54
0.68
1. 75
42
128
6
44
10
39
Discharge Pipe
Seafood Processing
Plant
7.52
7.48
2.19
1. 31
62
121
21
46
57
34
Fourth Avenue
East river
7.52
7.57
0.97
6.42
63
78
6
29
7
129
Prince Street
East River
7.80
7.66
0.95
0.42
51
116
6
30
5
197
Range Marker
East River
7. 77
7.68
0.82
0.28
44
71
7
22
59
165
TABLE 22.
MICROBIOLOGICAL LEVELS, SOUTHERN SAMPLING AREA AT HIGH TIDE DURING AUGUST
Stations
Marker "19 11
St. Simons Sound
Marker "24 11
St. Simons Sound
Sidney Lanier
Bridge
Discharge Pipe
Seafood Processing
Plant
Fourth Avenue
East River
I;>rince Street
East River
Range Marker
East River
r--
0'1
Aerobic
Plate Counts
20C org/ml
137
455
690
1.90 X 10 3
550
-
MPN
Coli forms
org/100 ml
MPN Fecal
Coli forms
org/100 ml
0. 3
0.3
7.45 X 10 3
21
2. 3
6.55 X 103
0.3
0.3
3.28 X 10 5
~2,400
460
330
2.20 X 10 4
23
3
625
2.80 X 10 4
210
43
305
3.90 X 10 4
460
43
1.15 X 10 3
315
3
Marine Agar
Plate Counts
org/ml
1.58 X 10 3
102
1.28 X 10 3
1. 58 X 10
Aerobic
Plate Counts
35C org/ml
1.84 X 10 3
co
"'
TABLE 23.
CHEMICAL PARAMETERS, SOUTHERN SAMPLING AREA AT HIGH TIDE DURING AUGUST
pH
Station
Surface Bottom
BOD
mg/1
Surface Bottom
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
mg/1
Surface Bottom
TURBIDITY
FTU
Surface Bottom
AMMONIA NITROGEN
}Jg/1
Surface Bottom
Marker "19"
St. Simons Sound
7.95
7.98
0.76
0.75
125
155
9
43
3
10
Marker "24"
St. Simons Sound
7.80
7.82
0.20
1.49
99
222
6
100
14
26
Sidney Lanier
Bridge
7. 71
7.70
0.71
0.89
102
105
22
31
10
22
Discharge Pipe
Seafood Processing
Plant
7.67
7.69
1.16
1.04
82
153
22
63
103
40
Fourth Avenue
East River
7.82
7.59
1.45
0.87
57
128
4
31
11
257
Prince Street
East River
7.68
7.64
1.68
1.53
54
126
4
34
44
116
Range Marker
East River
7.85
7.58
2.49
0.80
66
89
4
24
8
167
99
TABLE 24.
RAINFALL IN INCHES AT McKINNON AIRPORT,
ST. SIMONS ISLAND, JUNE 20, 1980 THRU
AUGUST 31, 1980.
JUNE
Date
Rainfall
JULY
Date
Rainfall
AUGUST
Date
Rainfall
6/20
6/21
6/22
6/23
6/24
6/25
6/26a
6/27a
6/28
6/29
6/30
7/1
7/2a
7/3
7/4
7/5
7/6
7/7
7/8
7/9
7/lOb
7/11
7/12
7/13
7/14
7/15
7/16
7/17b
7/18
7/19
7/20
7/21
7/22
7/23
7/24b
7/25
7/26
7/27
7/28
7/29
7/30b
7/31
8/1
8/2
8/3
8/4
8/5
8/6
8j7b
8/8
8/9
8/10
8/11
8/12
8/13
8/14b
8/15
8/16
8/17
8/18
8/19
8/20
8/2lb
8/22
8/23
8/24
8/25
8/26
8/27
8/28b
8/29
8/30
8/31
a
b
Trace
0
Trace
0
0
2.97
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.89
Trace
0.17
1.03
0.11
0.10
1.33
Trace
0.40
0
0
0
0
0.48
0.12
0
0.05
0.29
Trace
0
0.03
0.65
0
0
0
0.80
0.90
Hydrographic samples collected
Complete estuarine samples collected
1. 45
Trace
0
Trace
1.50
0
0
0
0
0
0.51
0.02
0
0
0
0.01
0.81
0
0
0
0
0
0.41
0.01
0
0
Trace
0.60
0
0
0
100
TABLE 25.
MEAN CHEMICAL AND MICROBIOLOGICAL PARAMETERS OF THE
PACKING HOUSE EFFLUENT, IMMEDIATE RECEIVING WATERS,
AND ESTUARINE STATIONS UP AND DOWNSTREAM FROM THE
DISCHARGE POINT (AUGUST, HIGH TIDE).
PARAMETERS
EFFLUENT!
DISCHARGE
POINT
UPSTREAM
DOWNSTREAM
BOD
Surface
Bottom
42la
42la
1.5
1.9
2.0
2.2
1.5
2.9b
13a
109
117
95
125
65b
Suspended Solids
Surface
Bottom
13a
105a
NH4
Surface
Bottom
179a
52b
35
27
179a
46
39
45
3.51
4.12
3.41
3.91
DO
4.27
4.27b
Surface
Bottom
10 3
Aerobic 20C
3.23
Aerobic 35C
1.35 x 104a
Marine 20C
1.55
X
X
104
3.79
3.35b
1.99
X
10 3
1. 78
708
2.09
X
104
X
10 3
759
2.45
X
104
676
288
9.55 x lo3a
1
Single sample collected, results repeated to differentiate
significant differences.
a
Significant 0.01 level
b
Significant 0.05 level
101
TABLE 26.
MEAN CHEMICAL AND MICROBIOLOGICAL PARAMETERS OF THE
PROCESSING PLANT EFFLUENT, IMMEDIATE RECEIVING
WATERS, AND ESTUARINE STATIONS ONE HALF MILE UP AND
DOWNSTREAM FROM THE DISCHARGE POINT (JULY, HIGH TIDE).
PARAMETER
EFFLUENT!
DISCHARGE
POINT
UPSTREAM
DOWNSTREAM
BOD
Surface
255a
0.87
Bottom
255a
1.02b
1.95
0.67
2.67b
1.18
Suspended Solids
Surface
60
65
29a
87
Bottom
60
94
633a
206
Surface
1616a
1616a
29
688a
78
Bottom
76
420a
Surface
7.47a
5.11
5.31
5.83b
Bottom
7.47a
5.23
5.36
5.28
NH4
101
DO
Aerobic 20C
5.62 x 106a
776b
3.09 x 103a
324
Aerobic 35C
1.95 x 106a
537b
2.04 x 10 3a
282
Marine 20C
4.27 x 106 a
1.20
X
104
9.77
X
103
6.03
X
1
Single sample collected, results repeated to differentiate
significant differences.
a
Significant 0.01 level
b
Significant 0.05 level
10 3
102
TABLE 2 7.
MEAN CHEMICAL AND MICROBIOLOGICAL PARAMETERS OF THE
PROCESSING PLANT EFFLUENT, IMMEDIATE RECEIVING WATERS,
AND ESTUARINE STATIONS ONE HALF MILE UP AND DOWNSTREAM
FROM THE DISCHARGE POINT (JULY, LOW TIDE) .
PARAMETER
EFFLUENT!
DISCHARGE
POINT
UPSTREAM
DOWNSTREAM
BOD
Surface
295a
13.00a
1.33
1.17
Bottom
295a
1. 32
0.97
0.69
120a
120b
93
205
Surface
2046a
150a
Bottom
2046a
40
Surface
7 . 5Sa
Bottom
7 . 55a
4.73
3. 79a
Suspended Solids
Surface
Bottom
59
528a
55
152
NH4
6
7
27la
31
DO
10Sa
1. 70 x 10 4a
Aerobic 20C
3.55
Aerobic 35C
2.24 x 105a
2.24
X
Marine 20C
2.29 x 105 a
4.68
X
X
4.78
4.47b
4.91
4.31
2.19
X
10 3
1.35
X
10 3
104
4.57
X
10 3
2.63
X
103
lo4a
1.05
X
104
3.02
X
103
1
Single sample collected, results repeated to differentiate
significant differences .
a
Significant 0.01 level
b
Significant 0.05 level
103
TABLE 28 .
MEAN CHEMICAL AND MICROBIOLOGICAL PARAMETERS OF THE
PROCESSING PLANT EFFLUENT, IMMEDIATE RECEIVING WATERS,
AND ESTUARI NE STATIONS ONE HALF MI LE UP AND DOWNSTREAM
FROM THE DISCHARGE POINT (AUGUST, HI GH TIDE).
PARAMETER
EFFLUENT!
DISCHARGE
POINT
UPSTREAM
DOWNSTREAM
BOD
Surface
270a
1.16
1.45
o. 7lb
Bottom
270 8
1.04
0 . 87
0.90
Suspended Solids
Surface
80
82
Bottom
80 8
153
57b
102
129
105
NH4
Sur face
Bottom
2649a
103a
11
10
2649a
40
256a
22
Surface
7 .55a
4.35a
5.Z3
4 . 78
Bottom
7. 55a
4 . 63
4.75
4. 71
DO
zoe
2.29
X
10sa
1.58
X
103b
676
447
Aerobic 35C
1. 23
X
l OS a
1. 78
X
10Jb
316
309
Marine ZOC
1. 51
X
10Sa
3. 24 x 105a
Aerobic
2 . 19
X
104b
6 . 46
X
1
Single sample collected, results repeated to differentiate
significan t di fferences .
a
Significan t 0.01 level
b
Significant 0.05 level
10 3
104
TABLE 29.
MEAN CHEMICAL AND MICROBIOLOGICAL PARAMETERS OF THE
PROCESSING PLANT EFFLUENT, IMMEDIATE RECEIVING WATERS,
AND ESTUARINE STATIONS ONE HALF MILE UP AND DOWNSTREAM
FROM THE DISCHARGE POINT (AUGUST, LOW TIDE).
PARAMETER
EFFLUENT1
DISCHARGE
POINT
UPSTREAM
DOWNSTREAM
BOD
Surface
28la
2.19a
Bottom
28la
1.31
Surface
98a
62
Bottom
98
121
0.97
6.41a
0.69
1. 75b
Suspended Solids
41
63
79b
128
7
10
NH4
Surface
2446a
57 a
Bottom
2446a
49
129
39
Surface
5.60a
3.98
3.98
4.47a
Bottom
5.60a
3.86
3.91
3.83
DO
Aerobic 20C
3.98 x 105a
4.17
Aerobic 35C
6.61 x 10 5a
4.27 x 103a
Marine 20C
6.46 x 10 5 a
6.17 x 103a
X
103
2.45
X
10 3
2.82
468
3. 71
X
103
X
10 3
537
2.40
X
1
Single sample collected, results repeated to differentiate
significant differences.
a
Significant 0.01 level
b
Significant 0.05 level
10 3
TABLE 30.
MAXIMUM
SURFACE
MINIMUM
SURFACE
MAXIMUM
BOTTOM
MINIMUM
BOTTOM
Duplin River
Main Dock Sapelo
1.72
0.27
4.20
0.86
Duplin River
Barn Creek
2.10
1. 79
2.57
0.53
Mouth of
Shellbluff Creek
Marker "162"
2.84
0.45
2.10
1.55
Shellbluff Creek
Packing House Station
0.96
0.34
1.69
1. 25
Shellbluff Creek
Bend above
Packing House
2.04
0.13
2.22
0.75
Mouth of Cedar Creek
0.82
0.19
1. 87
0.77
Cedar Creek
Dock Between Crab
Plant & Packing House
1. 04
0. 31
0.94
0.34
Cedar Creek Last Dock
0.26
0 . 32
0.92
0.34
Packing House Effluent
5. 75
STATION
1.1)
0
.-I
CALCULATED MAXIMUM AND MINIMUM NH3 (~g/1) LEVELS
SURFACE AND BOTTOM, NORTHERN SAMPLING AREA.
I()
0
~
TABLE 31.
CALCULATED MAXIMUM AND MINIMUM NH 3 (vg/1) LEVELS
SURFACE AND BOTTOM, SOUTHERN SAMPLING AREA.
MAXIMUM
SURFACE
MINIMUM
SURFACE
MAXIMUM
BOTTOM
MINIMUM
BOTTOM
Marker "19"
St. Simons Sound
2. 37
0.17
10.68
0.54
Marker "24"
St. Simons Sound
1. 38
0.52
18.04
1. 02
Sidney Lanier Bridge
2.77
0.21
1.65
0.71
Discharge Pipe
Seafood Processing
Plant
4.95
1. 33
10.87
0.72
Fourth Avenue
East River
0.70
0.16
17.54
3.01
Prince Street
East River
6.41
0.21
5.64
3.21
Range Marker
East River
2. 34
0.41
6.05
5.41
75.23a
39.lla
STATION
--
Processing Plant
Effluent
a
Exceeded proposed EPA guideline of 20 vg NH 3/ l.