PART IV. NATURAL RESOURCES ELEMENT

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

Geography 4-1

Geology 4-2

Climatic Conditions 4-3

Soils 4-4

Drainage Basins 4-6

Flood Plains 4-7

Water Resources 4-8

Forest 4-11

Plants and Wildlife; Rare, Threatened and Endangered 4-15

Rivers and River Related Resources 4-18

Wetlands 4-22

Summary, Observations, Conclusions 4-25

Goals and Strategies 4-27

PART IV. NATURAL RESOURCES ELEMENT

This element of the Comprehensive Plan consists of an inventory and assessment of natural resources, and consideration of their role in the future development of Spartanburg County.

Principal among the county’s natural resources are geography, geology, water, soils, floodways, drainage basins, forest, vegetation, wetlands, wildlife, and climatic conditions. A summary assessment of each follows.

GEOGRAPHY

Spartanburg County is located in the northwestern part of the state, in what has come to be known as the “ Crescent”.

The county lies just southeast of the in the piedmont plateau, which is characterized by subdued topographic features and moderate relief. The land surface is inclined to elevations exceeding 1,000 feet in the northwest section of the county to less than 600 feet in the southeast. Hills have a well rounded appearance with no conspicuously prominent ridges or peaks. Valley floors are generally about 100 feet deep with well developed water courses. There are few swamp like areas.

The general slope of the county is southeastward, which is the general direction of the main drainageways. The land ranges from nearly level to steep, but most areas are gently sloping to moderately steep. The highest point in the county, about 1,480 feet, is on Bird Mountain in the northwestern part. In the central part elevation ranges from 750 to 900 feet. In the northern part of the county, a series of hills rises about 200 feet above the surrounding land and does not conform to the general pattern of relief. The lowest elevation is on the Enoree River in the extreme southeastern part of the county near the Union County line.

4-1 GEOLOGY

Thirteen geologic formations are found in Spartanburg County, but over 95 percent of the county is in five major formations, shown on the accompanying map. These formations are made up of alluvium, fine-grained rocks, medium-grained rocks, fine-grained to coarse-grained rocks, and coarse-grained rocks. Alluvium consists of material recently deposited on flood plains. The fine-grained rocks are quartzite, diabase, taluca quartz monzonite, and sericite schist. The medium-grained rocks are granite, biotite gneiss, and migmatite. The fine- grained to coarse-grained rocks are biotite schist, Yorkville quartz monzonite, and hornblende schist. The coarse-grained rocks are hornblende gneiss, coarse-grained granite, and muscovite pegmatite dikes.

Nearly all of Spartanburg County, except for some small areas in the southeastern part bordering Union County, lies within the Inner Piedmont belt, a major subdivision of crystalline rocks in the Piedmont province. The small area in the southeastern part of the county contains rocks typical of the Kings Mountain belt.

v e r

m uch of the count y, the hard crystalline rock has weathered to a soft clayey or sandy material (saprolite), which maintains many of the original rock structures and extends from

4-2 Major Geologic Formations

1. Yorkville Quartz Monzonite 2. Hornblende Gneiss 3. Hornblende Schist 4. Biolite Gneiss Migmotite 5. Biotite Schist ground surface to depths of as much as 140 feet.

CLIMATIC CONDITIONS

Development attributed to the location of Spartanburg County is aided by climatic conditions, which have contributed to the accelerated growth of the southeast region of the United States (Sunbelt) over the last several decades, in contrast to the more frigid less hospitable temperatures in the northeast (Frostbelt) region.

A humid, temperate climate characterizes the county. Spartanburg County is located on the lee side of the mountains, which provide protection from the cold air masses that move southeastward during the winter. At Spartanburg, temperatures usually are between 32 degrees and 90 degrees for eight months of the year; the average daily temperature for the county is about 60 degrees.

Average annual rainfall is Rainfall Distribution

4-3 about 50 inches---an amount that exceeds the national average by 20 inches. Rainfall is usually well distributed throughout the year. Depending upon location, accumulations may vary from 30 inches in a dry year to over 80 inches in a wet year.

Prevailing winds are from the southwest most of the year, but are from the northeast late in summer and early fall. Average relative humidity ranges from 57 percent in winter to 47 percent in April and May. The average relative humidity for the year is approximately 70 percent.

Warm weather generally lasts from some time in May into September with few breaks from the heat during midsummer. Temperatures of 90 degrees or higher are recorded on an average of 50 days. About 25 percent of the annual rainfall occurs in summer, chiefly in local thundershowers.

Fall generally is the most pleasant season, especially from late September to early November. During this period, rainfall is light, the percentage of sunshine is high, and the temperature is generally moderate. About 23 percent of the total annual rainfall is in fall.

Winters are mild and relatively short, though about 60 days have temperatures at freezing or below. About 26 percent of the annual rainfall occurs in winter, mainly in steady rains.

Spring is the most changeable season. March is frequently cold and windy, but May is generally warm and pleasant. Severe thunderstorms and tornadoes are most likely in spring. About 26 percent of the total annual rainfall occurs in spring.

The climate of the county is favorable for crops such as peaches, apples, cotton, corn, small grain,

4-4 soybeans, hay, and vegetables.

That the climate is favorable to crop production is evident by the fact that Spartanburg County ranks second in the state in the production of peaches and apples and fourth in harvested acres of hay.

SOILS

Soils and soil conditions have a significant affect on land use, often limiting its development. Such is the case with soils in many areas of Spartanburg County. In fact just over one-third of all soils in the county pose severe constraints to urban development. The principal constraints fall into two categories: (1) foundations for dwellings, and (2) use for septic tanks.

Foundation limitations are the result of very low load bearing capacity, erodibility and steep slopes in some areas. Constraints in the use of septic tanks for on-site sewage disposal have to do with slow percolation rates, slopes, high water table, flooding, and hard rock at shallow depths. While it is not impossible to develop these soils, they are more costly to develop and often contribute to lingering problems. As a result, they are studiously avoided for the most part, at least for high intensity development, which generally has been the case in Spartanburg County. Unfortunately, lands with the fewest constraints for urban development also have the fewest constraints for agricultural use. And since development generally follows the path of least resistance, other factors being equal, there is the potential for conflict wherever agricultural lands (orchards) exist in an urbanizing environment. Something has to give, and it is generally the orchards.

Table 4-1 Soils Posing Severe Constraints to Development Spartanburg County

TYPE OF CONSTRAINT Percent Building Septic Soil Classification Land Area Foundation Tank Both

Cataula 7.6 X X X Congaree 3.5 X X X

4-5 Enon 1.4 X Hayesville .2 Irdell .1 X X X Louisburg .8 X Madison 6.3 X X X Mecklenburg .3 X X X Musella 1.4 X Pacolet 9.0 X Vance .5 X X X Wilkes 3.0 X X X Worsham 1.4 X X X Total 35.5 Water .6 36.1

Thirteen of the 22 different types (series) of soils in Spartanburg County pose severe constraints to development. Table 4-1 lists these soils, establishing their extent in the county, and identifies the type of constraint each poses.

Inherent constraints to urban development have kept most of these soils in a rural or undeveloped state, but with the expansion of public sewer service into these areas, one of the major obstacles will be no more, thus opening them to the prospects of more intensified development.

Ignoring land use suitability's and limitations can cost not only money, but even lives when soils that cannot support roads or structures are used improperly. Improper land use can also damage the resource and reduce its value for more suitable uses.

As a result, greater use of soils information is recommended as a prerequisite to development, including:

(1) Considering soil survey information as one of the criteria for making land use plans and decisions.

(2) Consulting a soil survey before commencing any earth-moving or construction activities.

(3) Requiring the use of soil surveys in any large scale land

4-6 development or management projects.

DRAINAGE BASINS

Spartanburg County extends into three parallel drainage basins. Consequent or trunk streams in this area resulted from the initial tilt of the land surface, and streamflow is toward the southeast at a general slope of about 15 feet per mile, except for the northeast corner which flows northeast into the . About 3.5 square miles of basin are drained for each mile in length along a mainstem.

One measure of natural drainage development is drainage density or the ratio of the total length of streams in a basin to the drainage area of the basin. In Spartanburg County, the ratio is estimated to be about 1.5 miles per square mile, indicating a fairly wide spacing of stream channels and a relatively long overland travel of surface water.

Major Drainage Basins

The tributary stream patterns are dendritic, or treelike, because there is little variation in the resistance of the rock structure to influence the direction of flow. Slopes of tributary streams are greater than those of mainstems, and their juncture with larger streams is usually at right angles. The total length of tributaries is about five times that of the mainstems.

4-7

FLOOD PLAINS

Flood plains are relatively narrow in Spartanburg County. They parallel most of the county’s rivers and tributaries, receiving flood waters or overflow during periods of heavy rain. Principal among these areas are lands paralleling:

Pacolet River Black Creek Fork Creek Reedy Creek Tyger Creek Enoree River Cedar Shoals Creek Dutchman Creek

That these areas remain undeveloped in order to function naturally to drain the county of flood water and minimize damage or destruction is critical to the future. To date, developers have for the most part avoided such areas.

Except for lake front property, these areas remain essentially undeveloped, and likely will remain so in view of their location relative to urban development patterns and applicable governmental regulations.

Due to the inherent danger from flooding, the continued reservation of these areas is strongly recommended. Such a recommendation is reinforced in light of the utility of these areas in replenishing ground water and helping protect water quality, and their contribution as wildlife habitats and linear open space in an urbanizing county.

To this end, the county should:

(1) Expand its review of proposed development in flood plains to ensure that buildings are located on flood-free sites and that other structures do not encroach on the flood plain so as to increase potential flooding on nearby properties.

(2) Develop a flood plain management program to include

4-8 incentives and conservation agreements to preserve or limit the use of such areas to natural greenways, agricultural or outdoor recreation.

WATER RESOURCES

Water is perhaps the single most important natural resource in Spartanburg County. The county is blessed with abundant supplies of both ground and surface water.

Streams and lakes account for over 95 percent of local water resources for industrial and domestic use. Ground water supplies make up the balance.

Ground water is the principal source for rural homes and farms, some small to medium sized industries, and some supplemental irrigation. The quantity of water available from ground sources is usually less than that which may be obtained from surface water sources. However, the importance of ground water lies in the fact that it is generally of good quality and available in most parts of the county. As a result, ground water can satisfy the requirements for most domestic, agricultural, and small industrial uses. The consistency of ground water quality and temperature are additional factors that enhance its utility and economic value. Ground water is soft, slightly acidic, and low in dissolved solids.

Well yields range from 1 to 250 gpm and average 20 gpm. The average yield is 53 gpm. Wells in topographically low areas, such as draws and gentle slopes, generally have the highest yields. Wells located on topographically high areas or on steep slopes generally have the lowest yields.

About 40 percent of the average rainfall in Spartanburg County becomes streamflow, or surface water, having excellent quality for domestic, industrial, and agricultural uses. The water is soft and has low concentrations of individual dissolved substances. Some streams in the central part of the county, however, receive waste discharges that increase dissolved solids content and deplete dissolved oxygen. The effect of these wastes is pronounced on the North, Middle, and South Tyger Rivers and on Fairforest Creek, particularly at low flow. Temperatures of surface water throughout the county are fairly uniform; changes in temperature at most locations are in response to seasonal weather conditions.

4-9 Surface water is drawn principally from Lake Blalock and Lake Bowen. Other sources include Lyman Lake, utilized by Springs Mill, and Lake Robinson and Lake Cunningham in Greenville County, used by Greer CPW. Additionally SJWD (Startex-Jackson-Welford-Duncan Water District) is planning to tap Lake Cooley and construct another lake source on the North Tyger River.

To add to the supply of surface water, the Spartanburg Water Commission plans to increase the “safe yield” of Lake Blalock by adding gates to raise the water level and capacity.

Lakes, when full, contain about 11.0 billion gallons (33,800 acre-feet). Reservoirs on the South Pacolet River account for 75 percent of the storage, exerting the largest single influence on water control and use. Overall, total capacity is governed by the small size of most structures and the degree of siltation, particularly of the older lakes. Table 4-2 summarizes surface water storage by basin.

Table 4-2 Storage Capacity as a Estimated Storage Capacity Percentage of Average River Basin Million Gallons Acre-Feet Annual Basin Streamflow

Pacolet 8,940 27,500 6.10 Tyger 1,600 4,910 .13 Enoree 10 30 .01

Source: Water Resources Commission, Water Resources of Spartanburg County, 1970.

Storage capacity has increased since 1970 by approximately 6 million gallons per day (safe yield) with the construction in 1973 of Lake Cooley. It is projected to further increase by an additional 4.2 million gallons with the planned improvements to raise the water level of Lake Blalock, and by another three million gallons (safe yield) as a result of a proposed new lake by SJWD on the North Tyger River.

This added storage capacity should easily meet the needs of the county through and beyond the life of this Plan, 2015.

4-10

That the future need for water has apparently been addressed by the various providers does not minimize the need to protect the source beyond the life of this Plan. And since the primary source is the county’s rivers and lakes, this means carefully planning and regulating development impacting these resources.

Also, ground water sources, though not as essential in meeting the county’s water needs, warrant similar planning and regulatory consideration. Acquifiers are an important source of supplemental domestic water supplies. Improper management of this resource could lead to decreased well yields, contamination of wells, and land subsidence. To counter this, the county in consultation with the water providers should:

(1) Establish planning policies related to ground withdrawals. Land use and development should be evaluated and planned to prevent excess ground water withdrawals. Housing densities and certain land uses should be restricted in areas where shallow aquifers are the only source for water supply.

(2) Consider implementing ordinances regarding the location of wells, irrigation ponds, and other water impoundment's in order to prevent or minimize adverse effects of ground water withdrawals and to encourage water conservation practices.

(3) Adopt water management and conservation plans that address the issue of competing water uses in the event of water shortages or adverse environmental effects of ground water withdrawals.

FOREST

Approximately 52 percent of all land in Spartanburg County is forested. Surprisingly, there was more forested land in 1993 than in 1986. What makes this surprising is the amount of urban development that has occurred in the county during this period and the resultant loss of forested land.

Table 4-3 Forest Inventory, Trends, By Type Group

Change

4-11 Forest Type Group 1986 1993 Acres %

Loblolly 101,818 85,474 -16,344 -16 Oak-Pine 29,308 54,249 24,941 85 Oak-Hickory 110,823 112,194 1,371 01 Oak-Gum- Cypress 3,664 3,616 -48 -01 Elm-Ash- Cottonwood 7,326 7,233 -93 -01

Total 252,939 262,766 9,827 04

Source: USDA, Forest Service, Forest Statistics for South Carolina, selected years.

Loblolly, oak, pine and hickory trees make up the majority of forested lands in the county, followed by elm, ash and cottonwood forest, gum and cypress forest, in that order.

Most large forested stands are found south and east of Spartanburg. Also, some areas north of Lake Bowen and Blalock have large stands of mixed and deciduous forest.

Table 4-4 Forest Inventory, Trends, By Ownership Class Change 1986 1993 Acres %

Public 9,032 10,660 1,628 18 Private Forest Industry 20,439 9,523 -10,916 -53 Farmer 106,239 79,566 -26,673 -25 Corporate 32,971 47,016 14,045 43 Individual 84,258 122,966 38,708 46

Source: Ibid.

The forest industry is not as heavily vested in Spartanburg as in many other counties in the state. In fact, forest lands owned by the timber industry

4-12 declined substantially during the past several years, from over 20,000 acres to less than 10,000. Farmer owned forest land also has declined, while corporate and individual ownership have increased. These ownership trends point to development speculation and investment in forest lands.

Forested land, while evidently diminishing as an economic commodity, based on decline in timber industry holdings, is an important component of the county landscape nonetheless.

The loss of forested lands generally means:

• more storm water runoff, • poorer water quality, • higher temperatures, • deteriorating viewscapes, and • greater demand for wooded recreation areas.

Forested lands harbor a store of important natural resources and provide valuable wildlife habitat, groundwater recharge areas, and open space. As a result, the future use and development of these areas should be based on a policy:

(1) That discourages, if not prohibits leap frog development which prematurely preempts their resource contribution;

(2) That preserves greenspace and perpetuates significant forest stands for future generations to enjoy;

(3) That minimizes the destruction of forest lands through prudent infrastructure and land use planning.

(4) That preserves visual buffer areas or strips where clear cutting is proposed.

(5) That encourages best management practices (BMPs) in the harvesting, developing and care of forested lands.

(6) That minimizes storm water runoff.

(7) That prevents damage to significant trees when interfacing

4-13 urban and rural development.

4-14

4-15 PLANTS AND WILDLIFE; RARE, THREATENED AND ENDANGERED

Wildlife habitats contribute greatly to the overall environmental and economic health of the county. They provide cover for animals and recreational opportunity to resident and nonresident hunters and outdoor enthusiasts. Wildlife habitats display natural beauty and provide educational opportunities and places for scientific research. Habitats also provide other important benefits, such as water and air filtration and serve to harbor many rare and unique plants and animals. The number, quality, and geographic extent of game, fish, and plant species is directly related to the extent and quality of their habitats.

Habitats are impacted by agriculture, forestry, industrial development and urban expansion. These activities over time have taken a toll on certain plants and animals in Spartanburg County.

From various reports of occurrences in Spartanburg County, the South Carolina Department of Natural Resources has compiled a list of 21 indigenous plants and animals considered to be rare, threatened or endangered.

The location of known species are shown on the accompanying map, and referenced by number in Table 4-5. Quad sheets showing more specific locations are available from the S.C. National Trust Program, Department of Natural Resources. That they are rare, endangered or threatened tends to obscure their presence but elevates their significance in the face of or when threatened by development. As a result, an awareness of their location and incorporation of development practices designed to protect them are essential to their survival for future generations to appreciate. Of the 18 different species of endangered plants--- the Dwarf-flowered Heartleaf---is classified as federally threatened, according to the Heritage Trust Program. Locally, however, this species is found in greater quantity than the other 17 listed by the Trust, with 28 documented occurrences (see Map).

The only animal on the endangered list is the Meadow Vale, a small field mouse. While rare in the county, this species is secure in the state.

4-16 Table 4-5 Rare, Threatened and Endangered Species Spartanburg County

Degree of Map Scientific Name Common Name Legal Status Endangerment Number

ANIMALS Microtus Pennsylvanicus Meadow Vole SC 3 -- PLANTS Aconitum Unicnatum Blue Monkshood SC 2 15 Circaea Lutetiana SSP Intermediate Canadensis Enchanter’s Nightshade SC 1 13 Fothergilla Major Mountain Witch-Alder SC 1 12 Gaultheria Procumbens Teaberry SC 1 19 Hackelia Virginiana Virginia Stickseed SC 4 0 Helianthus Laevigatus Smooth Sunflower SC 4 18 Helianthus Porteri Porter’s Goldeneye SC 1 6 Hexastylis Naniflora Dwarf-flowered Heartleaf FT 2 8 Isoetes Piedmontana Piedmont Quillwort SC 2 7 Juglans Cinerea Butternut SC 4 14 Juncus Georgianus Georgia Rush SC 4 5 Juniperus Communis Ground Juniper SC 4 4 Lonicera Flava Yellow Honeysuckle SC 2 9 Lygodium Palmatum Climbing Fern SC 1 17 Milanthium Virginicum Virginia Bunchflower SC 4 16 Minuartia Uniflora One-flower Stitchwort RC 4 1 Monotropsis Odorata Sweet Pinesap SC 1 2 Nistronia Umbellula Nestronia SC 2 3 Solidago Bicolor White Goldenrod SC 1 10 Outcrop ------11

Key SC of state concern 1 - Critically imperiled state-wide because of extreme rarity or because RC of regional concern of some factor(s) making it especially vulnerable to extirpation.

4-17 FT Federal threatened 2 - Imperiled state-wide because of rarity or factor(s) making it vulnerable 3 - Apparently secure in state, rare in county. 4 - Status unknown Source: S. C. Department of Natural Resources, 1997.

The list of species and occurrences identified herein is derived from an existing data base, which the Department of Natural Resources does not assume to be complete. There are areas not yet inventoried which may contain significant species or occurrences. As a result, care should be exercised in developing natural areas where such information is not available, particularly south of Spartanburg, where there is little evidence of documented occurrences.

4-18

4-19 Regarding the future of rare, threatened and endangered species in Spartanburg County, the following action is recommended.

(1) Continue to identify and expand the state’s data base of wildlife habitats and occurrences of rare and endangered species through cooperative efforts of the county, local governments, private conservation organizations and the S.C. Department of Natural Resources.

(2) Protect wildlife habitats through city and county planning efforts (to avoid development of such areas), and the use of conservation easements, land trusts, and other protective measures.

(3) Marshal all available resources and agencies to maximize conservation efforts, including utilization of federal programs such as Forest Stewardship and private organizations such as Quail Unlimited, National Wild Turkey Federation, S.C. Wildlife Federation, Ducks Unlimited, and Trout Unlimited.

(4) Develop a comprehensive urban forestry plan to include local tree ordinances, protection policies of urban open spaces, and landscape ordinances that utilize native plants.

RIVERS AND RIVER RELATED RESOURCES

The county’s rivers are multi-functional. A Rivers Assessment Study prepared by the S. C. Resources Commission, 1988, identifies and assesses the function and significance of the state’s rivers, including those in Spartanburg County. Rivers were assessed in terms of how well they performed a given function, or served a given purpose. They were assessed and ranked in terms of their utility as:

Agricultural Rivers Recreational Fishing Rivers Historic and Cultural Rivers Timber Management Rivers Industrial Rivers Undeveloped Rivers Inland Fisheries Rivers Urban Rivers

4-20 Table 4-6 Spartanburg County River Resources, By Category and Value Class

Category/Name Value Class Downstream Segment Upstream Segment Length AGRICULTURAL Pacolet 1 Lawsons Fork Creek Headwaters 39.0 Enoree 3 Laurens County Line Headwaters 85.0 Pacolet 3 Broad River N & S Pacolet River 50.0 Tyger 3 Lyman Lake Headwaters 21.0

INDUSTRIAL Tyger 1 N. Tyger River Bens Creek 15.0 Tyger 1 Bens Creek Headwaters 30.0 Tyger 2 S. Tyger River Middle Tyger River 12.0 Tyger 2 Middle Tyger River Headwaters 23.0 Enoree 3 Warrior Creek Headwaters 60.0 Pacolet 3 Broad River Buck Creek 43.0

INLAND FISHERIES Pacolet 2 S. Pacolet River N. C. Line 17.0 Pacolet 2 Bowen Reservoir Headwaters 11.0 Tyger 2 N. Tyger River Headwaters 39.0 Tyger 2 S. Tyger River Headwaters 35.0 Tyger 2 N. Tyger River Tigerville 32.0 Enoree 3 Broad River Gilders Creek 75.0

NATURAL FEATURES Pacolet 2 Pacolet Mills/Hwy 50 I-85 15.0

RECREATIONAL BOATING (Whitewater) Tyger 1 SC 417 Berry’s Millpond (SC 82) 4.5 Enoree 2 SC 296 SC 14 Pelham 4.0 Tyger 2 S. Tyger River Rt. 231, Marches Bridge 3.0 Tyger 2 Rt. 113 Rt. 86, Price Bridge 10.0

RECREATIONAL FISHING Pacolet, Tyger, Enoree 2-3 Most segments Most segments 307.0 Fairforest Creek 3 Tyger River Headwaters 38.0 Category/Name Value/Class Downstream Segment Upstream Segment Length TIMBER MANAGEMENT

4-21 Enoree, Pacolet, Tyger 2-3 Most segments Most segments 224.0 Dutchmans Creek 3 CR 91 CR 475 5.0 Fairforest Creek 3 SC 150 Croft State Park 4.0 Ferguson Creek 3 S. Tyger River US 221 5.0 Jimmies Creek 3 Tyger River CR 232 9.0

UNDEVELOPED RIVERS Enoree 1 N. of Whitmire US 221 34.0 Tyger 2 Broad River I-26 Bridge 46.0 Enoree 3 US 221 I-85 32.0 Fairforest/Foster Creeks 3 Tyger River 4 Rm above SC 56 Bridge 38.0

UTILITY RIVERS Enoree 2 Broad River Greenville Co. Line 75.0 Pacolet 2 Broad River S. Pacolet Reservoir 50.0 Tyger 2 Broad River Greenville Co. Line 79.0

WATER SUPPLY Enoree, Tyger, Pacolet 2-3 Lower end of county Headwaters 215.0

WILDLIFE HABITAT Enoree Creek 1 Enoree River Headwaters 3.0 All other rivers, creeks 3 To & through lower end of county Headwaters 462.5

Source: S.C. Water Resources Commission (Department of Natural Resources), South Carolina Rivers Assessment, 1988.

4-22 Natural Features Rivers Utility Rivers Recreational Boating Rivers Water Quality Rivers Water Supply Rivers Wildlife Habitat Rivers

Value class rankings from 1 to 4, were used to evaluate the significance of the resource. Value Class 1 represents a superior resource of statewide or greater than statewide significance. Value Class 2 is an outstanding resource of regional significance. Value Class 3 is a resource of local significance. Class 4 is of unknown significance, requiring further research.

River and river segments in Spartanburg County with an assigned resource value class of 3 or higher are identified on Table 4-6, by utility or characterization.

The county’s rivers may best be described as working rivers or utility resources, ranking high in value class as industrial, utility, water supply and timber management rivers. The Pacolet River also has a Class 2 value as an agricultural river.

Nearly all rivers and streams serve as wildlife habitats, and most are rated highly as recreational and inland fisheries. A few in the lower end of the county are classified as undeveloped. Recreational boating is considered good on segments of the Tyger River. No rivers were identified or classified as Urban, Historic and Cultural, or Water Quality.

A segment of the Pacolet River, between Pacolet Mills and I-85, traverses a 257-acre natural preserve, designated by the S. C. Heritage Trust. It is one of 51 such preserves in the state. The site has extensive river frontage in mixed hardwood and pine forest, and two native American soapstone quarries, which are listed on the National Register of Historic Places.

In sum, the county’s river corridors represent complex interactive systems providing multiple-use resources. As such, special consideration should be given to the planning and development of the riparian zone (area where land and water interface) of river corridors, including a requirement for buffer strips to retain adjacent land in an undisturbed or minimal use state.

WETLANDS

4-23

There are few documented wetlands in Spartanburg County, primarily because the county has yet to be surveyed for wetlands. Even when surveyed, the amount of wetlands is expected to be relatively small however, based on the county’s geography. In fact, wetlands in Spartanburg County may be better defined as bottom lands, based on their location.

Two known sites are currently protected from development. One is in Camp Croft, about 195 acres, and the second is in the Pacolet River Heritage Trust, nearly 200 acres.

That the whereabouts of other wetlands is unknown at this time does not minimize their importance or the need to mitigate circumstances threatening their continuation as wetlands.

The term wetlands means those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, bogs, and similar areas.

The principal criteria for determining wetlands are (1) hydrology, (2) soils, and (3) vegetation.

Wetlands are considered by the state and federal governments to be important to the public interest. As such, they are protected by state and federal laws. Prerequisite to the development of such lands is a “jurisdictional determination” by the U.S. Corps of Engineers. While missing a detailed survey of wetlands for the county, it is possible to get a general idea of their location by reviewing soils information, which is available.

Mixed alluvial land is characteristically wet. It is found in Spartanburg County in long strips along small and medium sized streams and is frequently flooded. It is widely distributed throughout the county. The surface layer is black to light-brown, very friable gravelly loamy sand to sandy clay loam 6 to 24 inches thick. The water table is high.

Wetlands mapping of the county currently is underway by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) program, but not all of the county has been mapped at this time.

4-24

The NWI delineates wetlands based on vegetation, apparent hydrology and physical terrain. These maps do not identify wetlands for jurisdictional purposes, but indicate potential wetlands that may require further on-site study. As a result, the county should encourage if not require that persons intending to engage in activities involving development within or adjacent to areas indicated by these maps, where available, as well as mixed alluvial soils, first contact the U.S. Corps of Engineers for a precise determination of jurisdiction and the consequences of such development.

Not all proposed wetlands development will require a permit from the Corps. However, no local building permit should be issued where wetlands are present and have been determined by the Corps to perform functions important to the public interest. This includes:

(1) Wetlands which serve significant natural biological functions, including food chain production, general habitat and nesting, spawning, rearing and nesting sites for aquatic or land species;

(2) Wetlands set aside for study of the aquatic environment or as sanctuaries or refuges;

(3) Wetlands the destruction or alteration of which would affect detrimentally natural drainage characteristics, sedimentation patterns, salinity distribution, flushing characteristics, current patterns, or other environmental characteristics.

(4) Wetlands which are significant in shielding other areas from erosion or storm damage.

(5) Wetlands which serve as valuable storage areas for storm and flood waters;

(6) Wetlands which are ground water discharge areas that maintain minimum base flows important to aquatic resources and those which are prime natural recharge areas;

4-25 (7) Wetlands which serve significant water purification functions; and

(8) Wetlands which are unique in nature or scarce in quantity to the region or local area.

Where such conditions are found to exist, the Corps will evaluate each request for development on the basis of projected benefits to be derived from the proposed development in relation to the damage to the wetlands resource.

Suffice it to say, wetlands restrictions by the federal government make development of wetlands tenuous at best. Where, in the past, development was constrained principally by the simple presence of wetlands. Now it is further constrained by the need to plan around or mitigate the use and circumstances of development proposed for such areas. Clearly, the presence of wetlands should alert the county and the developer to the need for a “wetlands determination” before proceeding. Failure to secure a wetlands determination and permit, if required, could result in work stoppage, restoration of the project site to its original state, fines, or other compensatory action.

As a factor responsible for influencing development, wetlands perceived as a natural resource, pose a greater deterrent to development than ever before.

4-26 SUMMARY, OBSERVATIONS, CONCLUSIONS

The inherent danger in Spartanburg County is to dismiss the presence and significance of its many natural resources in the interest of economic development. That the county’s natural resources are perhaps less fragile than those in the coastal counties of the state in no way minimizes their contribution to a balanced ecosystem.

For generations Walt Whitman’s comment regarding natural things, including trees---and all vegetation represented the prevailing attitude in the western world: “We must not know too much, or be too precise, or scientific about birds, and trees, and flowers, and water craft; a certain free margin, and even vagueness---perhaps ignorance, credulity---helps your enjoyment of these things.” Yet today in Spartanburg County these same elements are more in danger of destruction and more vital than ever before.

The natural resources identified and described herein are an integral part of a complex ecosystem, accountable in large measure for the quality of life in Spartanburg County.

That future development and developers be cognizant of the county’s natural resources and their place in the ecosystem is critical to sustaining qualify of life in the county. One of the principals governing ecosystems is that everything affects everything else. Misuse or destruction of any one of the county’s natural resources will have negative repercussions elsewhere in the system.

Proper planning, use and appreciation of these resources, on the other hand, can result in change without negative consequences. Clearly the county will continue to grow and urban and economic development will exact changes in the ecosystem. That these changes are minimized or mitigated is crucial to community sustainability and quality of life.

In sum, we may conclude:

(1) That climatic conditions contributed to the early development of the county and remain an asset to development in contrast to climatic conditions in the frostbelt. (2) The location of wetlands---in bottoms or low lying areas---has had little influence on development, but following a complete study of

4-27 the county (underway), such areas may figure more prominently in the development process once their presence is documented.

(3) That flood plains exist along most rivers and creeks in the county, warranting special consideration of proposed development impacting such areas in light of their contribution as drainageways, and wildlife habitats, their open space qualities, and their potential to flood.

(4) That 36 percent of the county’s soils pose physical constraints to development, warranting special consideration regarding their use and development.

(5) That the county is blessed with plentiful supplies of both surface and ground water, the protection and responsible use of which are critical to future growth and development, and community sustainability.

(6) That urban development notwithstanding, 52 percent of the county remains forested, providing a healthy, relatively balanced ecosystem, essential to community sustainability.

(7) That the county has 21 known rare, threatened and/or endangered plant and wildlife species, and that ensuring their survival for future generations to appreciate is the responsibility of us all, as stewards of our natural resources.

(8) That the county’s rivers and river resources play an important role in the economic development of the county, and that their retention as multiple class rivers is essential to community sustainability.

GOALS AND STRATEGIES

GOAL: Conserve, responsibly utilize and properly integrate into an urbanizing environment4-28 the county’s natural and historic resources.

The three key words in this goal statement are conservation, utilization, and integration.

• Conservation - for future generations to enjoy.

• Utilization - by the present generation.

• Integration - into an urbanizing environment for purposes of conservation and utilization.

Both regulatory and nonregulatory measures will be required to fully implement this goal, including:

Creation by the county of a resource information repository utilizing GIS Technology to help property owners and developers identify site specific resources and development limitations, to include:

• Wetlands • Soil conditions and limitations • Flood plains • Forest resources • Rare and endangered plants and wildlife habitats • River utilization classification • Historical and cultural resources • Slope

Preparation and distribution of educational materials and information relating to the need for and value of incorporating site present natural resources into proposed projects and developments.

Natural resources sell. The public appreciates natural areas. And developers taking advantage of available resources, through conservation and integration into their projects, stand to benefit monetarily. Such things as preserving, and 4-29 integrating into development projects mature trees, natural visual amenities, water resources, endangered floral species, historical cemeteries and grounds and other unique natural features where present, greatly enhance project ambience, acceptance and sales potential.

Retention of floodway and flood plain regulations.

Protection of wetlands, unique to many parts of the county, by:

• Defining and identifying the location of such lands,

• Alerting developers of need to consult the U.S. Corps of Engineers for a wetlands determination should local data indicate the presence of such lands,

• Establish a wetlands bank as a means of compensating for loss of bottomlands caused by development and subsequently expediting the development process.

Review the county’s Subdivision Regulations in an effort to promote resource conservation and integration of natural resource areas and amenities into new subdivisions.

The county’s subdivision regulations are rigid in terms of development requirements. They provide insufficient flexibility, and no compensating incentives for development which is sensitive to resource conservation.

Establish a review procedure at the planning stage to mitigate conservation efforts where natural and historical resources are involved or threatened.

Pursue the use of conservation easements as a means of perpetual protection for certain unique and/or natural resources, including reparian buffer zones.

4-30

Maintain natural or comparable buffers in the riparian zones paralleling the county’s rivers and creeks, where practical and feasible.

Investigate the use of financial incentives for developers and land owners who contribute to resource conservation.

4-31