DOCSLIB.ORG

Santee Cooper Cross Generating Station Modeling Report

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Santee Cooper Cross Generating Station Modeling Report AIR MODELING REPORT Santee Cooper > Cross Generating Station 1-Hour Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS Compliance Demonstration Modeling Prepared By: J. Russell Bailey – Principal Consultant Jon Hill – Managing Consultant Allison Cole – Consultant Andrew Kessler – Consultant TRINITY CONSULTANTS 15 E. Salem Ave. Suite 201 Roanoke VA 24011 540‐342‐5945 January 2017 Project 164701.0045 Environmental solutions delivered uncommonly well TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1-1 1.1. Purpose ..................................................................................................................................................................... 1‐1 1.2. Facility Description ............................................................................................................................................... 1‐2 1.3. Location .................................................................................................................................................................... 1‐2 1.4. Nearby Facilities .................................................................................................................................................... 1‐3 2. MODEL SELECTION 2-1 3. MODELING DOMAIN 3-1 3.1. Sources to Include ................................................................................................................................................. 3‐1 Primary Sources ........................................................................................................................................................................ 3‐1 Nearby Sources .......................................................................................................................................................................... 3‐1 3.1.2.1. Screening Area ..................................................................................................................................................................... 3 ‐ 1 3.1.2.2. Review of Possible Inventory Sources – Potential Emissions ........................................................................ 3‐1 3.1.2.3. Review of Possible Inventory Sources – Actual Emissions .............................................................................. 3‐4 3.1.2.4. Concentration Gradient Analysis ................................................................................................................................. 3‐5 3.2. Receptor Grid ....................................................................................................................................................... 3‐10 4. UNIT INPUTS AND SITE CHARACTERIZATION 4-1 4.1. Stack Parameters ................................................................................................................................................... 4‐1 Stack Height ................................................................................................................................................................................ 4‐1 Stack Diameter ........................................................................................................................................................................... 4‐2 Stack Temperature ................................................................................................................................................................... 4‐3 Stack Velocity .............................................................................................................................................................................. 4‐3 4.2. Emission Rates ....................................................................................................................................................... 4‐3 4.3. Urban vs. Rural ....................................................................................................................................................... 4‐4 5. METEOROLOGICAL DATA 5-1 5.1. Meteorological Data Site Evaluation and Selection .................................................................................... 5‐1 Proximity ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 5‐2 Overall Wind Pattern .............................................................................................................................................................. 5‐3 Land Use Representativeness Analysis ............................................................................................................................. 5‐7 Meteorological Data Site Selection ................................................................................................................................... 5‐8 6. BACKGROUND MONITORING DATA 6-1 6.1. Overview .................................................................................................................................................................. 6‐1 6.2. Proximity .................................................................................................................................................................. 6‐2 6.3. Data Quality ............................................................................................................................................................. 6‐2 6.4. Nearby Source Influence ..................................................................................................................................... 6‐2 6.5. Selected Background Values .............................................................................................................................. 6‐4 Annual Value ............................................................................................................................................................................... 6‐4 Temporal Values........................................................................................................................................................................ 6‐4 7. 1-HR SO2 NAAQS MODELING RESULTS 7-1 8. LIST OF ELECTRONIC FILES 8-1 Santee Cooper – Cross Generating Station | Modeling Report Trinity Consultants i APPENDIX A: ARCMAP PROTOCOL FIGURES A-1 APPENDIX B: CONCENTRATION GRADIENT PLOTS B-1 APPENDIX C: MODELING RESULTS C-1 Santee Cooper – Cross Generating Station | Modeling Report Trinity Consultants ii LIST OF FIGURES Figure 5‐1. Locations of Candidate Meteorological Stations 5‐2 Figure 5‐2. 2012‐2014 Windrose from MKS 5‐4 Figure 5‐3. 2012‐2014 Windrose from CHS 5‐5 Figure 5‐4. 2012‐2014 Windrose from OGB 5‐6 Figure 6‐1. Background SO2 by Month or Season 6‐6 Figure 6‐2. Background SO2 by Hour of Day 6‐7 Santee Cooper – Cross Generating Station | Modeling Report Trinity Consultants iii LIST OF TABLES Table 1‐1. Nearby Facilities 1‐3 Table 3‐1. Potential SO2 20D Analysis for Possible Inventory Sources within 50 km of Cross 3‐3 Table 3‐2. Actual SO2 Annual Emissions for Possible Inventory Sources within 50 km of Cross 3‐4 Table 3‐3. Actual SO2 20D Analysis for Possible Inventory Sources within 50 km of Cross 3‐5 Table 3‐4. Facilities Evaluated by Concentration Gradient Analyses 3‐6 Table 3‐5. Comparison of Actual and Potential Emissions for Concentration Gradient Facilities 3‐6 Table 3‐6. Stack Parameters for the Concentration Gradient Analysis 3‐8 Table 3‐7. Impact of Candidate Sources at Cross Facility 3‐9 Table 4‐1. Stack and Structure Heights 4‐1 Table 4‐2. 1992 NLCD Land Use within 3 km of the Cross Facility 4‐5 Table 5‐1. Average Surface Characteristics 5‐8 Table 6‐1. 1‐hour SO2 Design Concentrations for Potential Monitors 6‐2 Table 6‐2. Sources within 20 km of Jenkins Avenue Fire Station Monitor 6‐3 Table 6‐3. Sources within 20 km of Congaree Bluff Monitor 6‐3 Table 7‐1. Modeled Results for Comparison to NAAQS 7‐1 Santee Cooper – Cross Generating Station | Modeling Report Trinity Consultants iv 1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1.1. PURPOSE The Santee Cooper Cross Generating Station (Cross or CGS) is a coal‐fired power station located in Berkeley County, South Carolina. Berkeley County has been designated “unclassified” with respect to its attainment status to the 1‐hour sulfur dioxide (SO2) national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). The Cross facility has selected modeling under the SO2 Data Requirements Rule (DRR) for establishing attainment designation of the area surrounding the Cross facility. As demonstrated in this report, the Cross station is in compliance with the 1‐hour SO2 NAAQS, with maximum impacts less than 50% of the standard. The procedures used in this report are consistent with applicable guidance, including the February 2016 “SO2 NAAQS Designations Modeling Technical Assistance Document” (TAD) issued in draft form by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The procedures are consistent with the final DRR for the 2010 1‐hour SO2 primary NAAQS, which was effective September 21, 2015 (80 FR 51052, August 21, 2015). The current version of TAD references other EPA modeling guidance documents, including the following clarification memos: The August 23, 2010 “Applicability of Appendix W Modeling Guidance for the 1‐hour SO2 National Ambient Air Quality Standard”; and The March 1, 2011 “Additional Clarification Regarding Applicability of Appendix W Modeling Guidance for the 1‐hour NO2 National Ambient Air Quality Standard” (hereafter referred to as the “additional clarification memo”). Although the additional clarification memo
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Santee-Cooper: a Lock on Fish Passage Success Steven Leach Normandeau Associates, [email protected]
    University of Massachusetts Amherst ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst International Conference on Engineering and International Conference on Engineering and Ecohydrology for Fish Passage Ecohydrology for Fish Passage 2012 Jun 7th, 10:50 AM - 11:10 AM Session B7 - Santee-Cooper: A Lock on Fish Passage Success Steven Leach Normandeau Associates, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.umass.edu/fishpassage_conference Leach, Steven, "Session B7 - Santee-Cooper: A Lock on Fish Passage Success" (2012). International Conference on Engineering and Ecohydrology for Fish Passage. 5. https://scholarworks.umass.edu/fishpassage_conference/2012/June7/5 This is brought to you for free and open access by the Fish Passage Community at UMass Amherst at ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst. It has been accepted for inclusion in International Conference on Engineering and Ecohydrology for Fish Passage by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Santee-Cooper: A Lock on Fish Passage A brief review of upstream passage of American shad In the Santee Cooper System, South Carolina Steve Leach Normandeau Associates, Inc. [email protected] Objective: To briefly describe the Santee Cooper, South Carolina system and outline American shad passage in the system by navigation lock and fish lock Cooper R. Santee R. History of the Santee-Cooper System • Large-scale anthropogenic perturbations • Santee Canal : 1800 -1850, first summit canal in U.S. • Santee-Cooper Project – Santee River Diversion – online 1942. Santee Dam Jefferies Station / 3,400 ft. long spillway Pinopolis Dam,130 MW 8 mi. long earthen dam rm 48 rm 89 Cooper River Fish Passage • Striped bass can live out their life cycle in freshwater1 • Santee Cooper striped bass preferentially prey on blueback herring2 • Blueback herring use the Pinopolis Lock for upstream passage3 • Since 1957, the lock has been operated in season specifically for fish passage (more on that in a couple of minutes) • But……… 1Scruggs, G.D., Jr.
    [Show full text]
  • 03050201-010 (Lake Moultrie)
    03050201-010 (Lake Moultrie) General Description Watershed 03050201-010 is located in Berkeley County and consists primarily of Lake Moultrie and its tributaries. The watershed occupies 87,730 acres of the Lower Coastal Plain region of South Carolina. The predominant soil types consist of an association of the Yauhannah-Yemassee-Rains- Lynchburg series. The erodibility of the soil (K) averages 0.17 and the slope of the terrain averages 1%, with a range of 0-2%. Land use/land cover in the watershed includes: 64.4% water, 21.1% forested land, 5.4% forested wetland, 4.1% urban land, 3.1% scrub/shrub land, 1.4% agricultural land, and 0.5% barren land. Lake Moultrie was created by diverting the Santee River (Lake Marion) through a 7.5 mile Diversion Canal filling a levee-sided basin and impounding it with the Pinopolis Dam. South Carolina Public Service Authority (Santee Cooper) oversees the operation of Lake Moultrie, which is used for power generation, recreation, and water supply. The 4.5 mile Tail Race Canal connects Lake Moultrie with the Cooper River near the Town of Moncks Corner, and the Rediversion Canal connects Lake Moultrie with the lower Santee River. Duck Pond Creek enters the lake on its western shore. The Tail Race Canal accepts the drainage of California Branch and the Old Santee Canal. There are a total of 43.8 stream miles and 57,535.3 acres of lake waters in this watershed, all classified FW. Additional natural resources in the watershed include the Dennis Wildlife Center near the Town of Bonneau, Sandy Beach Water Fowl Area along the northern lakeshore, the Santee National Wildlife Refuge covering the lower half of the lake, and the Old Santee Canal State Park near Monks Corner.
    [Show full text]
  • Cultural Models, Landscapes, and Large Dams: an Ethnographic And
    CULTURAL MODELS, LANDSCAPES, AND LARGE DAMS: AN ETHNOGRAPHIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL HISTORY OF THE SANTEE COOPER PROJECT, 1938-1942 by ELIZABETH MARIE HARVEY LOVERN (Under the Direction of J. Peter Brosius) ABSTRACT This work systematically explores the discourse of the human and environmental impact of the Santee Cooper hydroelectric system developed in the South Carolina coastal plain. This federal New Deal government project occurred during 1938-1942 and inundated over 160,000 acres of wetlands and climax forest, displacing many long-time residents, their homes, farms, and communities, with dammed lakes and hydroelectric facilities. A major question addressed by this research is, “How do people perceive large-scale environmental change?” In a text analysis of primary documents, I analyze the discourse strategies the promoters of the development and those protesting it employed to support their assertions about the Santee basin landscape. I then introduce a broader cultural model framework in the form of an oral history ethnography to show how citizens in Berkeley County remember and currently interpret the changes wrought on the local landscape and in their lives. Shared by each of the cultural models through analysis are the themes of progress and destruction attributed to the development of the project. INDEX WORDS: Cultural Models, Landscape Anthropology, Environmental History, Memory, Political Ecology, South Carolina Coastal Plain CULTURAL MODELS, LANDSCAPES, AND LARGE DAMS: AN ETHNOGRAPHIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL HISTORY OF THE SANTEE COOPER PROJECT, 1938-1942 by ELIZABETH MARIE HARVEY LOVERN B.S., Georgetown University, 1996 A Dissertation Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of The University of Georgia in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY ATHENS, GEORGIA 2007 © 2007 Elizabeth Marie Harvey Lovern All Rights Reserved CULTURAL MODELS, LANDSCAPES, AND LARGE DAMS: AN ETHNOGRAPHIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL HISTORY OF THE SANTEE COOPER PROJECT, 1938-1942 by ELIZABETH MARIE HARVEY LOVERN Major Professor: J.
    [Show full text]
  • From Rice Fields to Duck Marshes: Sport Hunters and Environmental Change on the South Carolina Coast, 1890–1950 Matthew Allen Lockhart University of South Carolina
    University of South Carolina Scholar Commons Theses and Dissertations 2017 From Rice Fields to Duck Marshes: Sport Hunters and Environmental Change on the South Carolina Coast, 1890–1950 Matthew Allen Lockhart University of South Carolina Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarcommons.sc.edu/etd Part of the History Commons Recommended Citation Lockhart, M. A.(2017). From Rice Fields to Duck Marshes: Sport Hunters and Environmental Change on the South Carolina Coast, 1890–1950. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from https://scholarcommons.sc.edu/etd/4161 This Open Access Dissertation is brought to you by Scholar Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Scholar Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. FROM RICE FIELDS TO DUCK MARSHES: SPORT HUNTERS AND ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGE ON THE SOUTH CAROLINA COAST, 1890–1950 by Matthew Allen Lockhart Bachelor of Arts Wofford College, 1998 Master of Arts University of South Carolina, 2001 Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements For the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in History College of Arts and Sciences University of South Carolina 2017 Accepted by: Robert R. Weyeneth, Major Professor Janet G. Hudson, Committee Member Kendrick A. Clements, Committee Member Daniel J. Vivian, Committee Member Cheryl L. Addy, Vice Provost and Dean of the Graduate School © Copyright by Matthew Allen Lockhart, 2017 All Rights Reserved. ii DEDICATION In memory of my brother Marc D. Lockhart, who began this journey with me iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS First, I want acknowledge with gratitude my splendid dissertation committee. Getting to this point would not have been possible without my director, Robert R.
    [Show full text]
  • RETENTION TIME and FLOW PATTERNS in LAKE MARION, SOUTH CAROLINA, 1984 by Glenn G
    RETENTION TIME AND FLOW PATTERNS IN LAKE MARION, SOUTH CAROLINA, 1984 By Glenn G. Patterson and Richard M. Harvey U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Water-Resources Investigations Report 95-4145 Prepared in cooperation with the SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL Columbia, South Carolina 1995 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR BRUCE BABBITT, Secretary U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Gordon P. Eaton, Director For additional information write to: Copies of this report can be purchased from: U.S. Geological Survey District Chief Earth Science Information Center U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Reports Section Stephenson Center- Suite 129 Box 25286, Mail Stop 517 720 Gracern Road Denver Federal Center Columbia, SC 29210-7651 Denver, CO 80225 CONTENTS Page Abstract....................................................................................................................................... 1 Introduction............................................................................................................................... 2 Purpose and scope........................................................................................................... 2 Description of study area................................................................................................ 2 Methods of study...................................................................................................................... 5 Retention time and flow patterns..........................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • A Corporate Publication of Santee Cooper
    A Corporate Publication of Santee Cooper POWER 2 0 0 9 sourceWINTER W IN santee cooper ® T ER rom the CEO In many ways, 2008 is a tale of two years. The first is the one we are for 50 megawatts of f renewable biomass focused on as a nation: the economy faltered, consumer confidence plummeted and we ended the year in a recession. These events power by 2011 have greatly impacted the energy industry. The second, though, and a significant 09 is Santee Cooper’s success story. Even as our utility joined in solar-and-hydrogen the national belt-tightening, we look back on a significant set of research project at the accomplishments in every one of our major business areas, all of Center for Hydrogen IN THIS ISSUE which will help us continue to deliver low-cost and reliable power Research in Aiken. in 2009. In the conservation arena, Santee Cooper Santee Cooper completed a 25-year build-out of Cross Generating Green successfully Station in October with the completion of Cross Unit #4. Cross gave out more than #! Station is now the state’s largest coal-fired generating station and 750,000 free compact ! !" ! one that cements our role as the state’s largest power producer. This fluorescent light bulbs highly efficient station ensures that we generate the most power to our customers in the """ $ " ! Cross from the least amount of coal possible. spring and summer, 16 helped interested and eligible customers install solar panels at home Mollie Gore—Editor Generating We made tremendous progress on our plans to build new and arranged to buy excess power they produce, and launched a Jim Huff—Photo Editor/Photographer Station: base load generation, both coal-fired and nuclear power.
    [Show full text]
  • Endangered Species Act - Section 7 Consultation Biological Opinion
    Endangered Species Act - Section 7 Consultation Biological Opinion Action Agency: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Activity: Re-licensing of the South Carolina Public Service Authority (SCPSA) Hydroelectric Project (FERC #199-205) Consulting Agency: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), Southeast Regional Office (SERO), Protected Resources Division (PRD) SERO-2018-00325 Date Issued: ___________________________ Approved By: ___________________________ Roy E. Crabtree, Ph.D. Regional Administrator 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 6 1.0 Consultation History ........................................................................................................... 8 2.0 Description of the Proposed Action and Action Area ...................................................... 12 2.1 Proposed Action ................................................................................................................................ 12 2.1.1 Project History .............................................................................................................................. 12 2.1.2 Current Fish Passage ..................................................................................................................... 14 2.1.3 FERC Proposed License ..............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The Santee Project: a Detour to Success
    The Santee Project: A Detour to Success Overview Students will be introduced to the Old Santee Canal and the Santee Cooper Project. They will become familiar with the two topics, map specific locations, and weigh the positive and negative aspects of the project. Connection to the Curriculum This lesson is related to geography, science, language arts, and South Carolina History. South Carolina Social Studies Academic Standards 8-2.5 Explain the economic and political tensions between the people of the Upcountry and the Lowcountry of South Carolina, including the economic struggles of both groups following the American Revolution, their disagreement over representation in the General Assembly and the location of the new capital city, and the transformation of the state’s economy that was caused by the production of cotton and convinced lowcountry men to share power with upcountry men. 8-6.5 Explain the effects of the Great Depression and the lasting impact of New Deal programs on South Carolina, including the Rural Electrification Act, the Civilian Conservation Corps, Works Progress Administration and Public Works Administration building projects, the Social Security Act, and the Santee Cooper electricity project. Social Studies Literacy Elements F. Ask geographic questions: Where is it located? Why is it there? What is significant about its location? How is its location related to that of other people, places, and environments? P. Locate, gather, and process information from a variety of primary and secondary sources including maps S. Interpret and synthesize information obtained from a variety of sources—graphs, charts, tables, diagrams, texts, photographs, documents, and interviews Time Two to three fifty-minute class periods Materials South Carolina: An Atlas (Optional) 27-minute video – “Santee Canal – America’s First Superhighway” South Carolina Interactive Geography (SCIG) disc Computer South Carolina Highway map Dry erase markers Objectives 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Analysis and Remediation of the Pinopolis Dam
    Presented @ USSD Conference in Charleston 2003 ANALYSIS AND REMEDIATION OF THE PINOPOLIS DAM Mark Carter P.E.1 Ray Pinson E.I.T.2 Steve Collins P.E., Ph.D.3 Paul Rizzo P.E., Ph.D.4 ABSTRACT During the course of routine review and analysis Santee Cooper, their consultants, and the FERC determined that the Pinopolis Dams did not have an adequate margin of safety against failure during and immediately subsequent to a postulated recurrence of the famous 1886 Charleston Earthquake. Subsequent soil testing, computer stability analyses, research of remedial alternatives, and implementation of a pilot testing program led to a seismic mitigation plan that was engineered to include state of the art ground modification in conjunction with downstream berms. In all, the work consisted of constructing nearly 3,500 column elements requiring over 30,000 tons of rock, installing over 10 miles of perforated drainage pipe, and placing nearly 310,000 cubic yards of berm material over the top of the stone column areas at various locations along the 6-miles of dam. This paper summarizes the evaluation of project parameters such as seismic loading and soil properties, the various remedial alternatives considered, the engineering calculations associated with the selected remediation scheme, and the construction methods used during implementation of the Pinopolis East Dam Seismic Mitigation Project. INTRODUCTION The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) mandates periodic inspections and review of design basis for all licensed hydroelectric projects in the United States. During the course of routine review and analysis Santee Cooper, their consultants, and the FERC determined that the Pinopolis Dams did not have an adequate margin of safety against failure during and immediately subsequent to a postulated recurrence of the famous 1886 Charleston Earthquake.
    [Show full text]
  • Santee Cooper Presentation
    South Carolina Public Service Authority Presentation to: Public Service Authority Evaluation and Recommendation Committee September 5, 2018 ® Agenda Cost and Rate Development Santee Cooper Hydroelectric Project Parks, Conference Centers & Economic Development Water Systems Nuclear Other September 5, 2018 – 44000 – Pres No. 2 – 2 ® Cost and Rate Development September 5, 2018 – 44000 – Pres No. 2 – 3 What do we mean when we ® say “Cost of Service Rates”? Cost-of-service may be defined as the amount of revenue a company must collect from rates charged consumers to recover the cost of doing business. September 5, 2018 – 44000 – Pres No. 2 – 4 ® Uniform System of Accounts Santee Cooper uses the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) Uniform System of Accounts to maintain the books and records for the Electric System • This is the system of accounts used by most electric utilities • Allows utilities to report consistently (FERC and Energy Information Administration reports) • Provides detailed descriptions of what assets, liabilities, expenses and income should be charged to each account • Utilities frequently use this system of accounts to categorize costs when developing rates There is a similar uniform system of accounts typically used by water utilities prescribed by the National Association of Regulatory Commissioners (NARUC). Santee Cooper uses NARUC for the two Water Systems. September 5, 2018 – 44000 – Pres No. 2 – 5 Santee Cooper Electric System: ® Overview of Cost Components 2017 Cost Components COST OF SERVICE REVENUE REQUIREMENTS (millions) Fuel & Purchased Power CIF, PTS, SIL, + Non-Fuel O&M WC + Debt Service $170, 10% + Payment to State & Sums in Lieu (PTS, SIL) + Working Capital (WC) Fuel Subtotal $563, 32% + Capital Improvement Fund (CIF) Debt Service $399, 23% Total Revenue Requirement (“Cost”) 2017 Total Revenue Requirement (millions) $1,737 Purchased Power $198, 11% Non-Fuel O&M $407, 24% September 5, 2018 – 44000 – Pres No.
    [Show full text]
  • Historic Properties Cultural Resources Survey Santee Cooper
    I I Volume 1: Historic Properties I I Cultural Resources Survey I Santee Cooper Hydroelectric Project FERC Project No. 199-SC I Santee and Cooper Rivers I Berkeley, Calhoun, Clarendon, Orangeburg, and Sumter Counties I I I Prepared for: I ~p Santee Coopet I South Carolina Public Service Authority I Moncks Corner, South Carolina I I I Prepared by: ENGINEERS ARCHITECTS SCIENTISTS I PLANNERS Madison, Wisconsin I September 2002 I I I I I I I I I -I I I I I -_I I I I I I I I Table of Contents I Page I Abstract . A-i 1. Introduction ................................................................... I A. Name of Project ........................................................... B. FERC Project Number ...................................................... C. Project Description ......................................................... I D. Brief Description of the Area Surveyed .......................................... I E. Project Location . 2 2. Survey Report Text . 3 A. Physical Setting . .. 3 I (1) Existing and Historical Land Uses .......................................... 3 (2) General Types of Properties Identified . 3 B. Survey Methodology . 3 I (1) Survey Personnel Qualifications ........................................... 3 (2) Survey Dates . 3 I (3) Survey Objectives . 3 (4) Area Researched and Surveyed . 4 (5) Research Design ............ ·. 4 I (6) Evaluation of Survey Results . 4 C. Relevant Background Information ........................·. 4 (1) Historic Context . 4 I (a) Hydroelectric Development in South Carolina . 5 (b) Beginnings of Santee Cooper . 8 I (c) The Depression and Public Works Programs . 9 (d) Building Santee Cooper . 10 (e) Impact of the Project . 14 I (f) Disease Reduction . 14 (g) Rural Electrification . 14 I (h) Role in National Defense . 15 (i) Santee Cooper After 19~0 . 15 (2) Results of Previous Identification Efforts . 16 I D.
    [Show full text]
  • ASMFC River Herring Sustainable Fishing Plan for South Carolina
    ASMFC River Herring Sustainable Fishing Plan for South Carolina Introduction: The purpose of this sustainable fisheries management plan is to allow existing river herring fisheries that are productive and cause no threat to future stock production and recruitment to remain in place and close all others. Some excerpts from the stock status review for SC’s river herring were used in this document (ASMFC 2008). The review, which was prepared and submitted to the ASMFC shad and river herring board by SCDNR and the Stock Assessment Subcommittee (SASC), summarizes SC’s fisheries for river herring. Historically, river herring (blueback herring Alosa aestivalis) occurred in most of South Carolina’s major rivers (Figure 1). Commercial fisheries for blueback herring in South Carolina occur to a limited extent in open rivers such as Winyah Bay tributaries, but the majority of river fishing activity occurs in hydro-electric tailraces of the Santee-Cooper River system (Figure 2). It remains the most important and the most closely monitored fishery in the state. A brief history of the Santee-Cooper Complex is detailed in Appendix 1. Recreational fisheries for blueback herring exist, but only as a bycatch to the American shad fishery. Management of blueback herring in South Carolina is shared between the Marine Resources and Freshwater Divisions of the Department of Natural Resources (SCDNR). Management units are defined by stock and the complex of river(s) utilized. Management units include all rivers and tributaries within each area complex: Winyah Bay (Sampit, Lynches, Pee Dee, Bull Creek, Black, and Waccamaw Rivers) and the Santee-Cooper Rivers complex.
    [Show full text]