DOCSLIB.ORG

Predictive Modeling: an Archeolgical Assessment of Duke Power Company's Proposed Cherokee Transmission Lines Veletta Canouts

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Predictive Modeling: an Archeolgical Assessment of Duke Power Company's Proposed Cherokee Transmission Lines Veletta Canouts University of South Carolina Scholar Commons Archaeology and Anthropology, South Carolina Research Manuscript Series Institute of 10-1981 Predictive Modeling: An Archeolgical Assessment of Duke Power Company's Proposed Cherokee Transmission Lines Veletta Canouts Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarcommons.sc.edu/archanth_books Part of the Anthropology Commons Recommended Citation Canouts, Veletta, "Predictive Modeling: An Archeolgical Assessment of Duke Power Company's Proposed Cherokee Transmission Lines" (1981). Research Manuscript Series. 173. https://scholarcommons.sc.edu/archanth_books/173 This Book is brought to you by the Archaeology and Anthropology, South Carolina Institute of at Scholar Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Research Manuscript Series by an authorized administrator of Scholar Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Predictive Modeling: An Archeolgical Assessment of Duke Power Company's Proposed Cherokee Transmission Lines Keywords Excavations, Duke Power Company, Transmission lines, Cherokee County, South Carolina, Archeology Disciplines Anthropology Publisher The outhS Carolina Institute of Archeology and Anthropology--University of South Carolina Comments In USC online Library catalog at: http://www.sc.edu/library/ This book is available at Scholar Commons: https://scholarcommons.sc.edu/archanth_books/173 PREDICTIVE MODELING: AN ARCHEOLOG~CAL ASSESSMENT OF DUKE POWER COMPANY'S PROPOSED CHEROKEE TRANSMISSION LINES by Veletta Canouts Research Manuscript Series 181 With Contributions by Paul E. Brockington, Jr. and Tommy Charles INSTITUTE OF ARCHEOLOGY AND ANTHROPOLOGY UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA COLUMBIA, SOUTH CAROLINA 29208 October 1981 The University of South Carolina offers equal opportunity in its employment, admissions and educational activities, in accordance with Title IX, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and other civil rights laws. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEGMENTS. v LIST OF FIGURES vi LIST OF TABLES. vii MANAGENENT SUMMARY. CHAPrER 1 1 IntY'oduction • 1 The PY'oject Design 3 The AY'cheo!ogica! PY'ogY'am. 3 CHAPrER 2 7 The AY'cheo!ogica! RecoY'd: A BackgY'ound Assessment. 7 EnviY'onmenta! Assessment 7 EnviY'onmenta! Potentia! 8 EnviY'onmenta! PaY'ameteY's. 11 Site TY'ansfoY'mation PY'ocesses 12 Cu!tuY'a! Assessment. 13 PY'ehistoY'y. 14 EthnohistoY'y • 19 HistoY'y 20 SummaY'y. 23 CHAPrER 3 27 Phase I: Reconnaissance SUY'vey 27 SUY'vey Fie!d Methods 27 SUY'vey Resu!ts 30 SUY'vey Eva!uation. 38 SummaY'y. 46 CHAPrER 4 47 Phase I: PY'edictive Assessment and Recommendations 47 CHAPrER 5 53 CheY'okee FOY'd IY'onwoY'ks: Nationa! RegisteY' PY'opeY'ty. 53 AY'cheo!ogica! BackgY'ound • 53 PY'oject Design 54 Fie!d Reconnaissance and Resu!ts 54 AY'cheo!ogica! Eva!uation 59 AY'cheo!ogica! Recommendations. 62 iii APPENDIX I: P~ehisto~ic And Histo~ic Backg~ound by PauL E. B~ockington, J~ ••••• 65 APPENDIX II: LocaL CoLLecto~s In Che~okee County, South Ca~oLina by Tommy Cha~Les •• 71 APPENDIX III: "ELmo~e" • . ..... .. 75 APPENDIX IV: Mitigation PLan fo~ the P~otection of the Po~tion of the Che~okee Fo~d I~onwo~ks NationaL Registe~ P~ope~ty Affected by Duke Powe~ Company's P~oposed Che~okee T~ansmission Lines by Andy CLoninge~ •• •• 77 REFERENCES •• ..... ...... 79 iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The author would like to recognize sev­ eral individuals whose efforts enhanced the quality of the field survey and the final report. Mike Harmon, a very able field assis­ tant, is deserving of a special thank you. The archeological staff of the Institute offered welcome comments and advice. Duke Power Com­ pany is thanked for their cooperation and assistance, and in particular Andy Cloninger who worked closely with the archeologists in the field. Technical assistance in preparing this report was provided by Gordon Brown, photographer; Darby Erd, draftsman; and Mary Joyce Burns and Kenn Pinson, manuscript pro­ duction. v LIST OF FIGURES Page FIGURE 1. PY'oject Vicinity Map • •• 2 FIGURE 2. PY'oject COY'Y'idoY': Map 1. 26 FIGURE 3. PY'oject COY'Y'idoY': Map 2 ••• 27 FIGURE 4. PY'oject COY'Y'idoY': Map 3. 28 FIGURE 5. PY'oject COY'Y'idoY': Map 4. 29 FIGURE 6. Site 38CK58 Looking NOY'theast • 35 FIGURE 7. AY'ea of FOPmeY' Site 38CK11 • •• 35 FIGURE 8. Site 38CK59 Looking Southeast. 36 FIGURE 9. Site 38CK60 Looking South •• 36 FIGURE 10. Hafted QuaY'tz Bifaces fY'om 38CK59 • 37 FIGURE 11. Site Map of 38CK59 • ••••••• 41 FIGURE 12. PY'oject SUY'vey COY'Y'idoY' Schematic 42 FIGURE 13. Map of the AY'cheo~ogica~ ResouY'ces at Duke PoweY' Company's PY'oject X-81 3 Site B ••• 44 FIGURE 14. AY'cheo~ogica~ ResouY'ces in the Vicinity of the the Gaffney By-Pass Route •• 45 FIGURE 15. The CheY'okee FoY'd IY'onwoY'ks: 1976 Nationa~ RegisteY' PY'opeY'ty BoundaY'y 55 FIGURE 16. Re~ationship of the Iso~ated Furnace and Cana~ (38CK2) to Duke PoweY' Company Right-of-Way. •• 56 FIGURE 17. The Iso~ated B~ast Furnace: "E~ ~en". •• 58 FIGURE 18. Lanceo~ate PY'ojecti~e Point Data Sheet. 72 vi LIST OF TABLES Page TABLE 1. National Register of Historic Places: Cherokee County. •••••••••• 14 TABLE 2. Archeological sites Located in Cherokee County 16 TABLE 3. Cherokee archeological survey segments. 31 TABLE 4. Site descriptions • •• 32 TABLE 5. Survey artifact collections. 33 TABLE 6. Comparison of survey data • •• 39 TABLE 7. Archeological sequence expected in the Project Area •••• •• •• 67 TABLE 8. The Second Collection •• 74 vii viii I MANAGEMENT SUMMARY Duke Power Company proposes to construct two 230 kV trans­ mission lines in Cherokee County, South Carolina. As part of the federally mandated assessment of the potentially adverse impacts to archeological resources, the Institute has developed a two phase program to locate and evaluate archeological sites wi thin the project corridor. Phase I involved a two-day reconnaissance survey in February 1980 and a one-day field inspection, in September 1981, of the Cherokee Ford Ironworks already listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Because Phase I also involved the development of a predictive model of site occurrence, the area was surveyed sys­ tematically. Two transects and ten field check points along road rights-of-way provided fairl y even coverage. Two archeologists traversed a little over 25% of the 21-kilometer long corridor. Shovel probing at 20-meter intervals was necessary due to extreme­ ly poor ground visibility. This technique was of limited utility and only five archeological loci were identified: two prehistoric sites; one historic site; and two historic isolated finds. The survey was judged to be less than 50% effective, and between 15 and 25 archeological loci are predicted for the corridor as a whole. The archeological sites conform to general predictions about prehistoric and historic man-land relationships in the upper Pied­ mont, particularly along the Broad River drainage. Prehistoric flaking debris and a Middle Archaic biface dominated; lithic scat­ ter fit hypothesized patterns of interriverine resource extrac­ tion. An abandoned homestead testifies to the decline of farming in the area. A blast furnace located on Peoples Creek was once part of the Cooperville factory complex. Its National Register status recognizes the local production of iron in the "Old Iron Dis­ trict." Because of the position of the furnace relative to the proposed right-of-way, a plan to avoid or protect the site is recommended. In response, Duke Power Company proposes a mitigation plan to minimize potential adverse effects. The significance of the five surveyed sites lies in their potential to predict site locations in the unsurveyed portions of the corridor and to contribute information about the effects of transmission line construction. A Phase II walk-over of the en­ tire corridor is planned to gather these data. For these reasons, the sites are not recommended for nomination to the National Register of Historic Places. CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION The Institute of Archeology and Anthropology, University of South Carolina, designed a two-phase· archeological program to assess the potential impact of Duke Power Company's proposed 230 kV Cherokee transmission line upon the archeological resource base (Brockington 1977, 1980; Canouts 1980). The project area is located in Cherokee County near the town of Gaffney, South Carolina (Fig. 1). The pro­ posed lines will parallel the western bank of the Broad River, tra­ versing several small drainages, i.e., Peoples Creek, Toms Branch Creek, Little London and London creeks, McKowns Creek, Quinton Branch, and Gilkey and Abingdon creeks, which drain into the Broad. This Piedmont setting is characterized by a highly dissected sur­ face due to intensive agricultural and timbering practices during the 18th and 19th centuries. Most of the area has been affected by severe erosion, resulting in deflated and truncated soil profiles on the ridgetops and alluvial build-Up in the narrow drainages. Recent land management practices occurring in the project corridor include the commercial planting of pine, which serves, in part, to impede the erosional processes. In February 1980, under agreement with Duke Power, the Institute conducted a background review and a 25% reconnaissance field survey (Chapters 2 and 3). The survey design involved systematic subsurface shovel probes and the collection of artifacts, but no test excava­ tions. The reconnaissance survey located two prehistoric sites, one historic site, and two isolated finds. All three sites will be impacted by the proposed construction. None of these sites is recom­ mended for nomination to the National Register of Historic Places (Chapter 4). A second field investigation and subsequent assessment was under­ taken in September 1981 on the Cherokee Ford Ironworks National Regis­ ter property. The corridor crosses this National Register property at its northernmost extension. The archeological assessment recommends, if possible, a realignment west of the known isolated blast furnace and canal or the development of a preservation plan incorporating protective landscaping, fencing, and/or stablilization for the ruin (Chapter 5).
Load more

Recommended publications
  • History of the Broad River Development from Henderson Island to Hampton Island
    History of the Broad River Development From Henderson Island to Hampton Island Prepared For: South Carolina Electric & Gas Company 220 Operation Way Cayce, South Carolina 29033-3701 Prepared By: 521 Clemson Road Columbia, South Carolina 29229 December 2016 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 2 DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY 3 Early Settlement 3 The Revolutionary War 4 Civil War 5 Reconstruction – 20th Century 7 HYDROELECTRIC DEVELOPMENT 9 HISTORIC SITES 14 Parr Shoals 14 Fairfield Pumped Storage 19 Lyles Ford 22 REFERENCES 23 INTRODUCTION The existing Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) license for the Parr Hydroelectric Project (FERC Project No. 1894) expires on June 30, 2020. As a result, cultural resources investigations were conducted to assist the South Carolina Electric & Gas Company (SCE&G) in complying with the FERC relicensing process for the Parr Hydroelectric Project. The Parr Hydroelectric Project is located in central South Carolina along the Broad River in eastern Newberry County and western Fairfield County. The project includes both the Parr Shoals Development and the Fairfield Pumped Storage Facility Development. The total project area encompasses 4,400 acres on the Broad River and its tributaries between Henderson Island to the north and Hampton Island to the south, and Monticello Reservoir. As part of the FERC relicensing process, a Phase I cultural resources survey of the Parr Hydroelectric Project was completed in 2013 and 2014. Additional Phase II archaeological investigations were conducted in 2016 at two archaeological sites, 38NE8 and 38NE10. As a result of these investigations, four resources were identified as being eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP): the Parr Shoals Development, the Fairfield Pumped Storage Facility, Lyles Ford; and archaeological site 38NE8.
    [Show full text]
  • Water Quality
    3. Existing Conditions and WaterEnvironmental Quality Consequences 3.6 Water Quality 3.6.1 CHANGES TO THIS CHAPTER SINCE THE DEIS Since the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) the acreage of water resources in the project area have been updated to reflect the design changes resulting in the Refined Recommended Preferred Alternative (RPA); impacts resulting from the Refined RPA; and reflect the impacts to impervious and pervious surface areas of the Refined RPA. 3.6.2 HOW IS WATER QUALITY ASSESSED? The Clean Water Act (CWA) of 1972 requires that each state set water quality standards for all contaminants in surface waters. These standards are typically based on criteria recommended by the US Environmental In South Carolina, the SCDHEC Protection Agency (USEPA). The CWA also regulates the discharge of is responsible for monitoring pollutants into our state’s waters. In South Carolina, the USEPA has and regulating water quality delegated the responsibility of monitoring and regulating water quality for the USEPA. to the Department of Health and Environmental Control (SCDHEC). Many factors can affect water quality, including pesticides, heavy metals, livestock waste, litter, oils and grease, and other chemicals. Water from rain and runoff collect these pollutants and carry them into creeks and rivers. Natural resources and processes can also affect water quality. The amount of tree cover over streams and rivers can affect the temperature of the water, thereby affecting the habitat for other plants, fish, and insects. Additionally, sediment from erosion can wash downstream and impact the depth and important substrate within the stream. Existing Conditions and Environmental Consequences Water Quality FEIS May 2019 Page 3-237 3.
    [Show full text]
  • Technical Memorandum
    Technical Memorandum To: South Carolina Department of Natural Resources (DNR) South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (DHEC) From: CDM Smith Date: January 2015 Subject: Methodology for Unimpaired Flow Development Saluda River Basin, South Carolina (Prepared as part of the South Carolina Surface Water Quantity Modeling Program) 1.0 Background and Objectives for Unimpaired Flows Unimpaired Flow (UIF) describes the natural hydrology of a river basin. UIFs quantify streamflows throughout a river basin in the absence of human intervention in the river channel, such as storage, withdrawals, discharges, and return flows. From this basis, modeling and decision making can be compared with pristine conditions. This memorandum explains the methods that will be employed to develop UIFs for South Carolina’s Saluda River basin. It describes data needs, methods for filling data gaps, and issues specific to the Saluda River basin. Once developed, UIFs will be input to the Simplified Water Allocation Model (SWAM) to evaluate surface water hydrology and operations throughout the basin. The UIFs for the Saluda Basin will extend from 1925-2013. UIFs will serve two purposes: ° UIFs will be the fundamental input to the model at headwater nodes and tributary nodes upstream of historic management activity, representing naturally occurring water in the riverways. Current and future management practices such as storage, withdrawals, and discharges will be superimposed on the UIFs. ° UIFs will provide a comparative basis for model results. The impacts of current and future management practices on flow throughout the river network can be compared to the natural conditions represented by the UIFs, and decisions about relative impacts can be well informed.
    [Show full text]
  • South Carolina Department of Archives and History
    South Carolina Department of Archives and History National Register Properties in South Carolina Frank Evans High School, Spartanburg County (142 S. Dean St., Spartanburg) Facade Main Entrance Left Oblique Left Front Left Rear Elevation Elevation Left Rear Left Elevation Left Elevation Rear Elevation Right Rear Oblique Front Entrance Rear Entrance Oblique Detail Detail Right Elevation Right Front Main Entrance Main Entrance Facade Elevation Detail Clock Detail Rosette Detail Diapering Brickwork Interior Interior Interior Interior Interior Auditorium Auditorium Auditorium Gymnasium Stairwell Stage Seating and Balcony Light Fixture The Frank Evans High School, completed in 1922, with additions completed in 1925 and 1928, is architecturally significant as an excellent example of the Collegiate Gothic Style often characteristic of educational institutions in the early twentieth century. The building is the combined work of two prominent architects and one significant architecture-engineering firm: G. Lloyd Preacher (a South Carolina native working in Georgia); the Boston and Spartanburg firm of Lockwood, Greene and Company; and Spartanburg architect J. Frank Collins. The original building and master plan for the site was designed by G. Lloyd Preacher and Company. The three-story building housed a corridor of classrooms on each floor, an auditorium, and a gymnasium. The 1925 classroom addition to the high school was designed by Lockwood, Greene and Company to connect to the south wing of the existing building. The addition added twenty six rooms. The intention of maintaining the same character as the original portion of the building, and the details and ornamentation on the façade addition make it virtually indistinguishable from the main building.
    [Show full text]
  • National Register of Historic Places Inventory Nomination Form
    NPS Form 10-900-a 0MB Wo. 1024-0018 (3-82) Expires 10-31-87 1 United States Department of the Interior National Park Service National Register of Historic Places Inventory Nomination Form Continuation sheet Item number Page Name: Historic: Limestone Springs Locations At the end of Historic District College Drive, and adjacent to Limestone College Campus Common: Limestone Springs Classification: District Historic District Owners: Multiple Ownership (see continuation sheet) Representation in Existing Surveys: South Carolina Inventory of Historic Places, 1985. Description; The Limestone Springs Historic District includes ten buildings and one site associated with Limestone College and the conmunity of Limestone Springs. The focal point of the district is the historic section of the Limestone College campus, which contains nine buildings constructed between ca. 1837 and 1941. The buildings on the campus are oriented towards a central lawn and fountain. Also included in the district are a limestone quarry that was mined in the nineteenth and early twentieth century and a mid-nineteenth century church building. The limestone quarry is located adjacent to the historic section of the campus and the Limestone Springs Baptist Church is adjacent to the quarry. Key properties which contribute to the character of the district: 1. Winnie Davis Hall: Constructed in 1903 to house the Winnie Davis Hall of History, this two-story, brick Victorian Gothic building features a crenellated central tower, projecting central bay with gable, and grouped lancet windows. Winnie Davis Hall was individually listed on the National Register in 1977. 4. Limestone Springs Hotel Building: This four-story, brick building, which was constructed ca.
    [Show full text]
  • Limestone College
    LIMESTONE COLLEGE 2014-2015 Limestone College Academic Catalog Catalog Issue - Volume 170 Published Summer, 2014 Gaffney, South Carolina 29340-3799 Telephone (864) 489-7151 Fax (864) 487-8706 Cover Design by Abby Koba LIMESTONE COLLEGE ACADEMIC CATALOG The Limestone College Catalog provides information and regulations about cur- riculum, degree requirements, finances, schedules, attendance, and related matters. The catalog is considered to be a contract between the College and the student. The College reserves the right to change any statement or regulation in the catalog at any time, and it is the responsibility of the student to keep apprised of such statements and regulations and of any changes. Information on changes will be available in the office of the Vice President for Academic Affairs. Refer to the website for updated catalog. AFFIRmatiVE ACTION/EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY Statement Limestone College is dedicated to equal opportunity through affirmative action within the college community. Limestone's Affirmative Action/Equal Employment Opportunity Policy is designed to provide equal consideration of all applicants for faculty and staff positions, for all faculty members in the tenure and promotion process, for administra- tors, and staff seeking promotions and advancement, as well as for students seeking admission, financial aid, and equality in academic and athletic programs. A copy of Limestone's Affirmative Action/Equal Employment Opportunity Policy is available in the Limestone College Faculty and Staff Handbook, is on reserve in the A. J. Eastwood Library, and is posted at www.limestone.edu/knowyourrights. TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................... 8 ADMISSIONS INFORMATION .............................................................................. 15 FINANCIAL INFORMATION .................................................................................. 22 FINANCIAL AID AND SCHOLARSHIPS .............................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Upper French Broad Water Quality Management Plan
    UPPER FRENCH BROAD RIVER WATERSHED (06010105) OF THE TENNESSEE RIVER BASIN WATERSHED WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND CONSERVATION DIVISION OF WATER POLLUTION CONTROL WATERSHED MANAGEMENT SECTION UPPER FRENCH BROAD RIVER WATERSHED WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN TABLE OF CONTENTS Glossary Summary Chapter 1. Watershed Approach to Water Quality Chapter 2. Description of the Upper French Broad River Watershed Chapter 3. Water Quality Assessment of the Upper French Broad River Watershed Chapter 4. Point and Nonpoint Source Characterization of the Upper French Broad River Watershed Chapter 5. Water Quality Partnerships in the Upper French Broad River Watershed Chapter 6. Restoration Strategies Appendix I Appendix II Appendix III Appendix IV Appendix V Glossary GLOSSARY 1Q20. The lowest average 1 consecutive days flow with average recurrence frequency of once every 20 years. 30Q2. The lowest average 3 consecutive days flow with average recurrence frequency of once every 2 years. 7Q10. The lowest average 7 consecutive days flow with average recurrence frequency of once every 10 years. 303(d). The section of the federal Clean Water Act that requires a listing by states, territories, and authorized tribes of impaired waters, which do not meet the water quality standards that states, territories, and authorized tribes have set for them, even after point sources of pollution have installed the minimum required levels of pollution control technology. 305(b). The section of the federal Clean Water Act that requires EPA to assemble and submit a report to Congress on the condition of all water bodies across the Country as determined by a biennial collection of data and other information by States and Tribes.
    [Show full text]
  • Broad River Basin Have Captivated Tourists T and Ecologists Alike
    RIVER BR OAD BASIN he scenery and natural heritage of the Broad River Basin have captivated tourists T and ecologists alike. Hollywood even memorialized some of these places on the big screen, including in battle scenes filmed for the 1992 movie “Last of the Mohicans” at the 404-foot Hickory Nut Falls. profile: Total miles of The Broad River originates in the mountains of streams and rivers: western North Carolina and flows south east 1,513 through the foothills and Piedmont before Total acres of lakes: entering South Carolina. Major tributaries 1,954 SC include the Green, First Broad, Second Broad and Municipalities North Pacolet rivers. There are also four major man-made within basin: 27 lakes, including the popular tourist destination Lake Lure, which was Counties built in 1926 to supply electricity. Other reservoirs include Lake Adger within basin: 8 Bog turtle and Kings Mountain Reservoir, also known as Moss Lake. Municipalities Size: 1,514 in the basin include Forest City, Kings Mountain, Chim ney Rock square miles Village, Lake Lure, Rutherfordton, Shelby and Spindale. Population: 204,803 Some of the best-known natural beauties of the basin are Hickory Nut (2010 U.S. Census) Gorge, Chimney Rock State Park and Lake Lure. Perhaps lesser known is the incredible diversity of flora and fauna within the basin. The Broad BILL LEA KEVIN ADAMS River Basin contains more than 100,000 acres of public and private lands with rare animals, plants and natural communities. These Signi - ficant Natural Heritage Areas provide habitat for more than 100 rare plant and animal spe - Big Bradley Falls (left); cies and 24 rare natural communities.
    [Show full text]
  • South Carolina Surface Water Quantity Modeling Project
    South Carolina Surface Water Kirk Westphal, PE Quantity Modeling Project John Boyer, PE, BCEE Broad Basin Meeting No. 2 – Introduction to the Draft Model May 18, 2016 Presentation Outline • Project Background and Status • Model Calibration/Verification • Calibration/Verification Philosophy and Approach • Calibration Results and Discussion • Overview and Demonstration of Broad Basin Model Project Purpose • Build surface water quantity models capable of: – Accounting for inflows and outflows from a basin – Accurately simulating streamflows and reservoir levels over the historical inflow record – Conducting “What if” scenarios to evaluate future water demands, management strategies and system performance. The Simplified Water Allocation Model is… • A water accounting tool • Calculates physically and legally available water • Traces water through a natural stream network, simulating withdrawals, discharges, storage, and hydroelectric operations • Not a precipitation-runoff model (e.g., HEC-HMS) • Not a hydraulic model (e.g. HEC-RAS) • Not a water quality model (e.g., QUAL2K) • Not an optimization model • Not a groundwater flow model (e.g., MODFLOW) Project Status – Broad Basin Data Collection Unimpaired Flow - Streamflow, M&I and ag Development withdrawals, discharges, - Daily mean UIFs precipitation, reservoir Task 1 Task operations, interconnections, facility operation dates, etc. Data Analysis - Gap filling and record extension Stakeholder Input Basin Model Baseline Model Schematic Calibration Task 2 Task - Model framework - Reproduce actual - Simulate current development conditions conditions Stakeholder Stakeholder Input Meeting Input Meeting #1 #2 Catawba Salkehatchie Savannah Overall Dee Pee Santee Saluda Edisto Broad - Project Status Wat. 1. Data Collection, Organization and Analysis 2. Model Framework Development 3. Unimpaired Flow Development 4. Model Development and Calibration 5. Baseline Model Development and Documentation 6.
    [Show full text]
  • Historical and Architectural Inventory
    Upper Richland County South Carolina Historical and Architectural Inventory Edwards-Pitman Environmental, Inc. June 2002 Upper Richland County, South Carolina Historical and Architectural Inventory Edwards-Pitman Environmental, Inc. Jennifer F. Martin Nicholas G. Theos Sarah A. Woodard Funded by The Richland County Conservation Commission and The South Carolina Department of Archives and History June 2002 The activity that is the subject of this report has been financed in part with Federal funds from the National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, and administered by the South Carolina Department of Archives and History. However, the contents and opinions do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the Department of the Interior. This program receives Federal financial assistance for identification and protection of historic properties. Under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and the Age Discrimination Act of 1975, as amended, the U. S. Department of the Interior prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, disability or age in its federally assisted programs. If you believe you have been discriminated against in any program, activity, or facility as described above, or if you desire further information please write to: Office of Equal Opportunity, National Park Service, 1849 C Street, N.W., Washington DC 20240. Acknowledgements Several individuals provided assistance without which we would not have been able to carry out this survey. Daniel J. Vivian, who served as the Survey Coordinator for the South Carolina State Historic Preservation Office during the majority of the project, offered excellent advice and technical assistance.
    [Show full text]
  • Duke Energy WSL III Units 1 & 2 COLA
    William States Lee III Nuclear Station Environmental Report, Chapter 2 CHAPTER 2 ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Title Page 2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION............................................................................ 2.0-1 2.1 STATION LOCATION ................................................................................................. 2.1-1 2.1.1 REFERENCES...................................................................................................... 2.1-1 2.2 LAND........................................................................................................................... 2.2-1 2.2.1 THE SITE AND VICINITY ..................................................................................... 2.2-1 2.2.1.1 The Site........................................................................................................... 2.2-1 2.2.1.2 The Vicinity...................................................................................................... 2.2-2 2.2.2 TRANSMISSION CORRIDORS AND OFF-SITE AREAS..................................... 2.2-5 2.2.3 THE REGION........................................................................................................ 2.2-5 2.2.4 REFERENCES...................................................................................................... 2.2-6 2.3 WATER ....................................................................................................................... 2.3-1 2.3.1 HYDROLOGY ......................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • GIS Final Project
    Runoff and geomorphic properties of North Carolina rivers Michael Kanarek Dec. 7, 2012 CE 394K.3 Introduction Hypsometric analysis is used in a several geologic fields, including hydrology. A number of studies on the relationship between hypsometry and hydrology have found that hypsometric curve parameters have a strong relationship with basin hydrology, especially flood response. (Perez-Pena et al., 2009) GIS provides powerful tools for the study of these properties, especially through the utilization of digital elevation models. For the purposes of this study, two watersheds originating in western North Carolina will be studied: the Upper French Broad River watershed (HUC8 06010105) and the Upper Broad River watershed (HUC8 03050105). The French Broad River flows for 213 miles, starting in the Appalachian Mountains of Transylvania County, N.C., and ending in Knoxville, TN, where it joins with the Holston River to form the start of the Tennessee River. The Upper French Broad River watershed has an area of 4,868 km2. The Broad River flows for 150 miles, beginning in the Blue Ridge Mountains of Buncombe County, N.C., and eventually joining the Saluda River to form the Congaree River near the city of Columbia, S.C. The Upper Broad river watershed has an area of 6,419 km2. Watershed locations National Geographic, Esri, DeLorme, NAVTEQ, UNEP-WCMC, USGS, NASA, ESA, METI, NRCAN, GEBCO, NOAA, iPC Watersheds Upper Broad 0 5 10 20 30 40 Upper French Broad Miles ± Data gathering Data for this project was acquired primarily from the USGS’s National Map Viewer. Elevation data was downloaded in the form of nine individual 1/3 arcsecond digital elevation maps.
    [Show full text]