DOCSLIB.ORG

Cultural Resources Survey of the SCE&G Saluda Dam Complex

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Cultural Resources Survey of the SCE&G Saluda Dam Complex CULTURAL RESOURCES SURVEY OF rHE SCE&G SALUDA DAM COMPLEX, LEXINGTON COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA CHICORA RESEARCH CONTRIBUTION 306 © 2001 by Chicora Foundation, Inc. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, transmitted, or transcribed in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise without prior permission of Chicora Foundation, Inc. except for brief quotations used in reviews. Full credit must be given to the authors, publisher, and project sponsor. CULTURAL RESOURCES SURVEY OF THE SCE&G SALUDA DAM COMPLEX, LEXINGTON COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA 1 Prepar~d By: Michael Trinkley, Ph.D. Prepared For: Mr. David Haddon South Carolina Electric & Gas Company 6248 Bush River Road Columbia, SC 29212 CHICORA RESEARCH CONTRIBUTION 306 Chicora Foundation, Inc. PO Box8664 Columbia, SC 29202-8664 803/787-6910 Email: [email protected] www.chicora.org January 8, 2001 This reporl is printed on pennanent paper oc ABSTRACT This report provides the results of a cultural found to be less than 50 years in age, but are likely to resources investigation of the 550 acre Saluda (Lake be eligible when they are old enough. Of these 11 Murray) Dam Complex, situated in north central resources on the survey tract, five are recommended Lexington County, about 11 miles northwest of eligible (2430127.0, 2430127.02-.04, 2350304), Columbia. The study was conducted by Dr. Michael three are recommended not eligible (2430127.01, Trinkley of Chicora Foundation for South Carolina 2430128, and 2430303), and three are less than 50, Electric & Gas (SCE&G) and is in anticipation of years old, but are likely to be eligible when they are old extensive modifications to the Saluda Dam mandated by enough (2430127.05-.07). the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). The work is intended to assist SCE&G comply with The archaeological survey consisted of shovel Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act testing at 100 foot intervals along transects laid out at and the regulations codified in 36CFR800. 100 foot intervals covering approximately 250 of the 550 acres. The remaining portion of the tract had-been Historically the area appears to have been extensively damaged by activities associated with the sparsely settled d~ing the nineteenth century and even original dam construction or the- use of the facili-t;y-for into the early twentieth century there were few farms in power ge_~eration. Not surveyed wer~-borrow. pits, areas the immediate area. This dearth ·of settlement may have under; buildings or substations, the acreage under the been the result of poor soils and extensive erosion~ ·By dam, the areas used today as ash ponds, the coal depot, the early twentieth century settlement appears to have and similar locations. We found that even in·lhose areas been focused on the road network leading to the two that appeared i:htact there was considerable evidence of ferries, called Hope F~rry and Dreher Ferry, east and erosion and logging. Land management activities on the west of the study tract. Even along Bush River Road, tract are minimal, so there are areas of very dense pine which runs along the north edge of the project, there forest, as well as areas almost completely denuded for was little settlement. powerline right-of-ways. The shovel tests throughout the tract revealed very thin soils overlying clay subsoil. Although l-26 is situated only six miles to the northeast and the complex is situated between the towns The archaeological investigations identified · of Lexington and Irmo, much of the area is essentially eight archaeological sites (38LX410, 434-440) and one rural in nature. It has only been within the past decade isolated find (38LXOO) on the study tract. These sites that a number of subdivisions have begun to be include both prehistoric lithic scatters and historic constructed in the area and this rural character has dump sites (no clearly defined domestic sites were begun to fade. As a result, the area of potential effects identified), The sites are all heavily eroded and (APE) was defined as 1.0 mile from the outer edge of extensively damaged by previous cultivation and logging. the SCE&G site. This has incorporated an APE of None evidence good integrity and it is unlikely that any approximately 5,500 acres. of the sites can address significant research questions. They are all recommended not eligible for inclusion on Forty-one historic sites were identified within the National Register. the APE, including 11 (2430126.0-.07, 2430128, 2430303, and 2430304) located on the survey tract. It is possible that archaeological remains may We recommend 24 of these resources not eligible, two be encountered in the project area during construction. potentially eligible (and requiring additional research Construction crews should be advised to report any beyond the scope of this study), and 12 eligible for discoveries of concentrations of artifacts (such as inclusion on the National Register. Three sites were bottles, ceramics, or projectile points) or brick rubble to the project engineer, who should in turn report the material to the State Historic Preservation Office or to Chicora Foundation (the process of dealing with late discoveries is discussed in 36CFR800.13(b)(3)). No construction should take place in the vicinity of these late discoveries until they have been examined by an archaeologist and, if necessary, have been processed according to 36CFR800.13(b)(3). ii • TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Figures iv List of Tables v Introduction 1 Natural Environment 5 Physiographic Province 5 Geology and Soils 6 Climate 9 F/oristics 9 Prehiston'c Bnviro~ment 10 Prehistoric and Historic Synopsis 13 Prehistoric Overview 13 Historical Synopsis 19 Hi;ton'c Context for the Development of Electric Power Resources 27 Electrical Development in South Carolina 31 The Development of the Lake Murray Project 32 Continued Development 45 An Overview of Construction Activities 46 Methods 51 JJe,;t;f'cation of the Survey Area 51 Archaeological Field Methods 58 Architectural Survey 59 Site Evaluations 60 Laboratory Analysis 61 Results of Survey 63 Jntroduction 63 Archaeological Sites 63 Historic Resources 82 Genera/ Overview of Other Resources 89 Conclusions 93 Sources Cited 97 iii LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Location of the project in Lexington County 2 2. Survey tract 3 3. Soils in the project area 7 4. Portion of the Reconnaissance Erosion Map of Lexington County 8 5. Ax.ea of still active erosion 9 6. Logged area in survey tract 10 7. Dense second growth forest 11 8. Open, more mesic forest 12 9. Generalized cultural sequence for South Carolina 14 10. Portion of Mouzon's 1775 map showing th~ project area 20 11. Portion of Mills' Atlas showing the project area 21 12. Dreher' s Canal disco_vered during construction of Lake Murray 22 13. "Rock House" associated with Dreher' s Canal 23 14. View of the area during Sherman's march 25 15. Stroeber's 1873 map of Lexington showing the project area 26 16. Operation of hydroelectric and fossil. fuel plants 29 17. View of the f!oodpool during clearing 34 18. Layout of administrative buildings, mess hall, land office building, and bunk houses 34 19. P orlion of the 1922 Lexington County soil survey showing the project area 35 20. Pre-construction map of the dam area 36 21. Land Atlas of the dam area 37 22. Temporary bridge under construction 38 23. View of the temporary bridge in 1930 38 24. Penstock construction in 1929 39 25. View of the dam construction looking north 39 26. View of the north bank of the Saluda River 40 27. View of the Saluda Hydroelectric powerhouse under construction 40 28. Completed Saluda Hydroelectric project about 1935 41 29. Aerial view of the Saluda dam and powerhouse 41 30. Cross section view of the Saluda powerhouse 42 31. Bil.lbo.,d °'ected by the Lexington Water Power Authority 43 32. View of the spillway 44 33. Close-up of the Yninger Cemetery show in Figure 32 44 34. View of the completed McMeekin Station 45 35. Close-up view of the McMeekin Station about 1970 45 36. Expansion of the Saluda Hydroelectric plant about 1971 46 37. Aerial view of the dam complex about 1930 47 38. Dam complex and vicinity in 1943 49 39. Upper left section of the survey area 52 40. Upper right section of the survey area 53 41. Central left section of the survey area 54 iv 42. Central right section of the survey area 55 43. Lower left section of the survey area 56 44. Lower right section of the survey area 57 45. Cultural resources identified within the APE 64 46. Plan view of isolated find 38LXOO 67 47. Plan view of the Yninger Cemetery 68 48. View of the Yninger Cemetery 69 49. Plan and shovel test profile for 38LX434 70 50. View of 38LX434 71 51. Plan and shovel test profile for 38LX435 72 52. Plan and shovel test profile for 38LX436 74 53. View of 38LX436 75 54. Plan and shovel test profile for 38LX437 76 55. Plan and shovel test profile for 38LX438 77 56. View of 38LX439 and the access road 79 57. Plan and shovel test profile for 38LX439 80 58. Plan and shovel test profile for 38LX440 81 59. View of the Saluda Hydroelectric plant powerhouse 83 60. Stone entryway across the dam 83 61. Tainter gates and spillway 84 62. Switching house at the spillway 84 63. McMeekin plant 85 64. McMeekin track hopper house 86 65. "Power for Progress" sign 86 66. Remnant caissons for the temporary bridge 87 · 6 7. Harmon Spring 88 LIST OF TABLES Table 1.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Dreher Shoals Dam
    Lake Murray, north of Columbia, South Carolina, is one of the oldest lakes in South Carolina. In 1930, a dam was completed. It was once the largest earthen dam in the world. There are three names associated with this dam, Saluda River Dam, Lake Murray Dam and the Dreher Shoals Dam. In 1928, the dam was officially named Dreher Shoals Dam, by a Concurrent Resolution of the South Carolina General Assembly. The other names were used by locals in conversation. The Dreher name was common in the area at the time of the building of the dam and to honor the owners of the land, the name was applied to the dam. The earthen dam and the newer dam completed in 2005, is called the Dreher Shoals Dam, from water fed by the Saluda River that feeds Lake Murray. The lake was named after William Murray, who was the chief engineer who oversaw the building of the earthen dam in 1930. The project was started in 1927. Clips of the building can be seen on the source, <lakemurrany.com> below. The Saluda River enters South Carolina at the border from North Carolina. The water eventually joins two other rivers and dumps into the Atlantic Ocean. The dam supplies water to the City of Columbia and serves as a hydroelectric power source. The building of the dam in 1927 was by Lexington Water Power, predecessor to SCE&G (South Carolina Electric & Gas) It required the relocation of 5,000 people, many churches and schools and over 2,000 graves. The dam is 1.5 miles wide and 208 feet high.
    [Show full text]
  • Settlement Agreement
    SERVICE LIST Advisory Council on Historic Mr. James Cumberland Preservation Program Manager 1100 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite 809 Coastal Conservation League Old PO Building - Office of Project Review 2231 Devine Street, Suite 202 Washington, DC 20004-2501 Columbia, SC 29205 Mr. Gerrit Jobsis Mr. Parkin Hunter American Rivers Columbia Audubon Society 1207 Lincoln Street, Suite 203-C 161 Preserve Lane Columbia, SC 29201 Columbia, SC 29209 Mr. Kevin Colburn Mr. Dan Tufford National Stewardship Director President American Whitewater Columbia Audubon Society 1035 Van Buren Street PO Box 5923 Missoula, MT 59802 Columbia, SC 29250 Ms. Charlene Coleman Mr. Bill Hulslander American Whitewater Congaree National Park 3351 Makeway Drive 100 National Park Road Columbia, SC 29201 Hopkins, SC 29061 Executive Director Chairman Appalachian Council of Governments County of Newberry PO Box 6668 PO Box 156 Greenville, SC 29606-6668 Newberry, SC 29108-0156 Mr. James Kardatske Mr. Russell Towsend Bureau of Indian Affairs Tribal Historic Preservation Officer 545 Marriott Drive Eastern Band of Cherokee Suite 700 PO Box 455 Nashville, TN 37214 Cherokee, NC 28719 Mr. James Meggs Honorable Kimberly D. Bose Esquire Secretary, City of Columbia Federal Energy Regulatory Commission PO Box 667 888 First Street, NE Columbia, SC 29202-0667 Washington, DC 20426 Ms. Karen Kustafik Mr. Charles D. Wagner, Acting Regional City of Columbia Parks and Recreation Engineer 1932 Calhoun Street Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Columbia, SC 29201 3125 Presidential Parkway, Suite 300 Division of Dam Safety and Inspections Mr. Mark Williams Atlanta, GA 30340 City Administrator City of Forest Acres Ms. Vivianne Vejdani 5205 North Trenholm Road South Carolina Department of Natural PO Box 6587 Resources Forest Acres, SC 29206-6587 1000 Assembly Street, Suite 202 Columbia, SC 29201 A-1 SERVICE LIST Mr.
    [Show full text]
  • Saluda Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 516) Study Plan: Effects Of
    Saluda Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 516) Study Plan: Effects of Releases from the Saluda Hydroelectric Project Dam on the Temperature Regime of the Lower Saluda and Congaree Rivers Water Quality Technical Working Committee March 15, 2006 I. Study Objective The study objective is to characterize the effects of water releases from the Saluda Hydroelectric Project Dam on the temperature regime of the Lower Saluda River (LSR) and Congaree River, including downstream extent of temperature alteration, timing and duration of temperature alteration, and mixing characteristics. II. Geographic and Temporal Scope Temperature investigations will focus on the LSR from downstream of Saluda Hydro Dam to its confluence with the Broad River; the Congaree River from its origin at the confluence of the Saluda and Broad rivers to its terminus at the confluence with the Wateree River; and the lower Broad River from the Broad River near Jenkinsville USGS gage (#02160991) to its terminus at the confluence with the Saluda (Figure 1). The study is scheduled to begin in March 2006 and will continue through October 2007. III. Methodology Water temperature data will be collected from 11 locations in the study area, as determined in consultation with the resource agencies and interested stakeholders, using a combination of existing USGS gages and deployed instrumentation (Figure 1). Specifically, temperature data will be acquired from the following USGS gages with temperature capabilities: Broad River near Jenkinsville (#02160991), Saluda River below Lake Murray
    [Show full text]
  • Scoping Document 1 for Saluda Dam FERC No
    FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION Washington, DC 20426 DATE: May 03, 2002 MEMORANDUM TO: The Agency/Party Addressed SUBJECT: Scoping of environmental issues for seismic remediation of the Saluda Dam, Saluda Hydroelectric Project, FERC No. P-516, South Carolina The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) is requiring the seismic remediation of Saluda Dam at the Saluda Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 516), licensed to South Carolina Electric and Gas Company. The project is located on the Saluda River, in Richland, Lexington, Newberry, and Saluda counties, South Carolina. The Commission intends to prepare an Environmental Assessment (EA) for the Saluda Dam Remediation Project, which will be used by the Commission to identify project impacts and to identify measures that may help mitigate the impacts caused by the project. To support and assist our environmental review, we are beginning the public scoping process to ensure that all pertinent issues are identified and analyzed, and that the environmental document is thorough and balanced. We invite your participation in the scoping process, and are circulating the attached Scoping Document 1 (SD1) to provide you with information on the remediation project. We solicit your comments and suggestions on the SD1, which contains our preliminary list of issues and alternatives to be addressed in the EA. We will hold two scoping meetings on May 17, 2000, to receive input on the appropriate scope of the environmental analysis. Both meetings will be held at the Embassy Suites Hotel, 200 Stoneridge Drive, Columbia, SC. A resource agency meeting will be held from 9:00 a.m to 12:00 noon.
    [Show full text]
  • South Carolina Electric & Gas Company
    SOUTH CAROLINA ELECTRIC & GAS COMPANY COLUMBIA, SOUTH CAROLINA SALUDA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT FERC NO. 516 SPRING USE ADDENDUM STUDY REPORT FINAL OCTOBER 2007 Prepared by: SOUTH CAROLINA ELECTRIC & GAS COMPANY SALUDA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT FERC NO. 516 SPRING USE ADDENDUM STUDY REPORT FINAL OCTOBER 2007 Prepared by: SOUTH CAROLINA ELECTRIC & GAS COMPANY SALUDA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT FERC NO. 516 SPRING USE ADDENDUM STUDY REPORT FINAL TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Purpose of Study................................................................................................. 1-4 2.0 METHODOLOGY ......................................................................................................... 2-1 2.1 Data Collection................................................................................................... 2-1 2.1.1 Literature Review ................................................................................... 2-3 2.1.2 Facilitated Meetings and Personal Interviews......................................... 2-3 2.1.3 Other Sources.......................................................................................... 2-5 2.2 Analysis.............................................................................................................. 2-5 2.2.1 Use Estimates.......................................................................................... 2-5 3.0 RESULTS......................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • (P-516) 1. South Carolina Coastal Conservation Leag
    APPENDIX 5.2: SAMPLE PLEADINGS List of Exhibits Saluda Hydroelectric Project (P-516) 1. South Carolina Coastal Conservation League and American Rivers, “South Carolina Coastal Conservation League and American Rivers’ Amended Complaint for Failure to Comply with Conditions of Water Quality Certifications,” FERC eLibrary no. 20031021- 0077 (Oct. 21, 2003) (includes 60-day Notice of Citizen Suit). Smith Mountain (P-2210) 2. Tri-County AEP Relicensing Committee, “Motion for Intervention and Request for Rehearing of Order Finding Non-Compliance with Shoreline Management Plan,” FERC eLibrary no. 20110922-5132 (Sep. 22, 2011). 3. Tri-County AEP Relicensing Committee, “Request for Partial Rehearing and/or Clarification of Order on Rehearing,” FERC eLibrary no. 20111118-5134 (Nov. 18, 2011). Kern No. 3 (P-2290) 4. American Whitewater and Friends of the River, “Motion to Intervene,” FERC eLibrary no. 20140326-5146 (Mar. 26, 2014). Eastern Juliette (P-7019) 5. American Rivers and Altamaha Riverkeeper, “Response to Order Granting Rehearing for Further Consideration,” FERC eLibrary no. 20150120-5499 (Jan. 20, 2015). Enloe (P-12569) 6. American Rivers et al., “Comment on Okanogan PUD No. 1’s Request for Stay of the Commencement and Completion of Construction Deadlines,” FERC eLibrary no. 20170907-5050 (Sep. 7, 2017). 7. American Rivers et al., “Request for Rehearing of FERC’s Order Granting Stay and Denying Motion to Intervene,” FERC eLibrary no. 20171020-5206 (Oct. 20, 2017). Citizen Guide to License Implementation: Appendix 5.2 June 2019 Exhibit 1 Jnofficial FERC-Generated PDF of 20031021-0077 Received by FERC OSEC 10/20/2003 in Docket#: P-516-000 t ,,ORIGINAL UNITED STATES OF AMERICA "r~6~f~ ~ ~¢e FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION "~/'~ff4( ~ _ ')" South Carolina Electric & Gas Company, 1 Docket nos.
    [Show full text]
  • The Effects of the Saluda Dam on the Surface-Water and Ground-Water Hydrology of the Congaree National Park Flood Plain, South Carolina
    Prepared in cooperation with the National Park Service, Congaree National Park The Effects of the Saluda Dam on the Surface-Water and Ground-Water Hydrology of the Congaree National Park Flood Plain, South Carolina Scientific Investigations Report 2008–5170 Cover. Front: Boardwalk in the Congaree National Park. Back: Boggy gut in the Congaree National Park (photographs taken by Theresa Thom, National Park Service). The Effects of the Saluda Dam on the Surface-Water and Ground-Water Hydrology of the Congaree National Park Flood Plain, South Carolina By Paul A. Conrads, Toby D. Feaster, and Larry G. Harrelson Prepared in cooperation with the National Park Service, Congaree National Park Scientific Investigations Report 2008–5170 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Department of the Interior DIRK KEMPTHORNE, Secretary U.S. Geological Survey Mark D. Myers, Director U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2008 For product and ordering information: World Wide Web: http://www.usgs.gov/pubprod Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth, its natural and living resources, natural hazards, and the environment: World Wide Web: http://www.usgs.gov Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. Although this report is in the public domain, permission must be secured from the individual copyright owners to reproduce any copyrighted materials contained within this report. Suggested citation: Conrads, P.A., Feaster, T.D., and Harrelson, L.G., 2008, The effects of the Saluda Dam on the surface-water and ground-water hydrology of the Congaree National Park flood plain, South Carolina: U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • South Carolina Electric & Gas Company
    SOUTH CAROLINA ELECTRIC & GAS COMPANY COLUMBIA, SOUTH CAROLINA SALUDA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT FERC PROJECT NO. 516 MISCELLANEOUS FILING MATERIAL EXHIBIT H DECEMBER 2007 Prepared by: SOUTH CAROLINA ELECTRIC & GAS COMPANY COLUMBIA, SOUTH CAROLINA SALUDA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT FERC PROJECT NO. 516 MISCELLANEOUS FILING MATERIAL EXHIBIT H DECEMBER 2007 Prepared by: SOUTH CAROLINA ELECTRIC & GAS COMPANY COLUMBIA, SOUTH CAROLINA SALUDA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT FERC PROJECT NO. 516 MISCELLANEOUS FILING MATERIAL EXHIBIT H TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INFORMATION REQUIRED FROM ALL APPLICANTS .................................. H-1 1.1 Customer Information Programs............................................................ H-6 1.2 Energy Conservation Programs............................................................. H-7 1.3 Load Management Programs ................................................................ H-8 H-i EXHIBIT H ADDITIONAL INFORMATION 1.0 INFORMATION REQUIRED FROM ALL APPLICANTS 1. The Applicant intends to continue to operate and maintain the project to provide efficient and reliable electric service. a. The Applicant provides for the reliability of its electric system by maintaining an adequate reserve margin of supply capacity, and by maintaining daily operating reserves to balance the risk that some of the Applicant’s generation capacity may be forced offline on any given day because of mechanical failures, wet coal problems, environmental limitations, or other unforeseen events. The Applicant is a member of the Virginia-Carolinas Electric Reliability Council (VACAR), an organization which coordinates a regional reserve sharing system allowing its members to pool their reserve generation resources on a prorated basis. This VACAR Reserve Sharing Arrangement (VRSA) provides a formal mechanism for VACAR members to share reserve capacity. b. Saluda Hydro will continue to operate primarily as a reserve generation facility in the SCE&G system.
    [Show full text]
  • Forensic Investigations of Dam Failures Paul C
    Forensic Investigations of Dam Failures Paul C. Rizzo October 7,2010 Case Histories • A few introductory notes: – All major litiga tion on each projtject is compltdleted –All information reported here is in the public domain • Dam Failures discussed today –The “Classics” plus –Taum Sauk – Silver Lake – Saluda Dam –Swinging Bridge Click to edit Master title style – Will not talk about Tampa Bay, Lake Dehli, Levee Failures 2 References • Dr. A.J. “Skip” Hendron • Brian Green • Prof. J. David Rogers • Euler Cruz & Rafael Cesário • Dr. David Petley Click to edit Master title style 3 Definition of Failure • Failure at a dam is “an uncontrolled release of water” • Causes of Failure – Overtopping –the most common cause – Piping thru Embankment –2nd!! –Piiiping thru Foundidation –3rd!! – Foundation Degradation •Karst development • Lique fac tion •Loss of fines over time – Earthquakes – ground motion and faults Click to edit Master title style – Failure of gates, stoplogs, flashboard malfunction, penstocks, tunnels, and reservoir slopes 4 Some “Classics” We learn from out mistakes!! Click to edit Master title style 5 Classic Failures • Had a major impact on dam or hydro engineering • Had a major impact on dam safety legislation and dam safety regulations Click to edit Master title style • Had a major impact on society 6 Folsom Dam Folsom, California July 17, 1995 Click to edit Master title style 7 Folsom Dam – “Before” Click to edit Master title style 8 Folsom Dam – “After” Click to edit Master title style 9 Folsom Dam ‐ 1995 Click to edit Master
    [Show full text]
  • Overview of the Saluda Dam Remediation Project
    REMEDIATION OF SALUDA DAM RCC AND ROCKFILL DAMS Paul C. Rizzo1, Scott Newhouse2, Jeff Bair3 Abstract Saluda Dam, part of the FERC regulated Saluda Hydroelectric Project located near Columbia, South Carolina, is being upgraded to resist a recurrence of the 1886 Charleston Earthquake. The existing, semi-hydraulic fill embankment Dam was completed in 1930 and, based on current technology, is viewed as being susceptible to liquefaction during the design seismic event. Several remediation options were considered with the selected approach being a back-up berm, essentially a “Dry Dam”, at the downstream toe of the existing Dam. The “Dry Dam” will consist of about 5500 feet of Rockfill and about 2300 feet of RCC. This Project is the largest active (year 2002) dam construction project in the United States and the final Project will involve the placement of 1.3 million cubic yards of RCC and 3.5 million cubic yards of Rock Fill. This paper discusses the design basis for the RCC Dam and the Rockfill Dam, with particular emphasis on the extensive laboratory and pre-construction test program for the RCC. We discuss the seismic design basis, loading conditions, finite element analysis, mix design parameters, drainage and joint design, facing considerations, thermal stress analysis and joint spacing, and the mix design testing programs. The mix design program addresses the use of aggregate from an on-site borrow area and the use of landfilled waste flyash as a constituent of the RCC. Introduction Paul C. Rizzo Associates is the engineer of record for the seismic upgrade of the Saluda Dam located in Columbia, South Carolina.
    [Show full text]
  • A Dangerous Place to Dig Excavation at the Toe of Saluda Dam
    Missouri University of Science and Technology Scholars' Mine International Conference on Case Histories in (2004) - Fifth International Conference on Case Geotechnical Engineering Histories in Geotechnical Engineering 15 Apr 2004, 1:00pm - 2:45pm A Dangerous Place to Dig Excavation at the Toe of Saluda Dam Elena Sossenkina Paul C. Rizzo Associates, Columbia, South Carolina Scott Newhouse Paul C. Rizzo Associates, Columbia, South Carolina Matt Glunt Paul C. Rizzo Associates, Columbia, South Carolina Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarsmine.mst.edu/icchge Part of the Geotechnical Engineering Commons Recommended Citation Sossenkina, Elena; Newhouse, Scott; and Glunt, Matt, "A Dangerous Place to Dig Excavation at the Toe of Saluda Dam" (2004). International Conference on Case Histories in Geotechnical Engineering. 15. https://scholarsmine.mst.edu/icchge/5icchge/session02/15 This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 4.0 License. This Article - Conference proceedings is brought to you for free and open access by Scholars' Mine. It has been accepted for inclusion in International Conference on Case Histories in Geotechnical Engineering by an authorized administrator of Scholars' Mine. This work is protected by U. S. Copyright Law. Unauthorized use including reproduction for redistribution requires the permission of the copyright holder. For more information, please contact [email protected]. A DANGEROUS PLACE TO DIG EXCAVATION AT THE TOE OF SALUDA DAM Elena Sossenkina Scott Newhouse, P.E. Matt Glunt, E.I.T Paul C. Rizzo Associates, Columbia,SC Paul C. Rizzo Associates, Pittsburgh, PA Paul C. Rizzo Associates, Columbia, SC ABSTRACT Remedial work on the Saluda Dam will entail excavation at the toe to depths of over 50 ft.
    [Show full text]
  • Analysis of Dam Failure in the Saluda River Valley
    Analysis of Dam Failure 219 Analysis of Dam Failure in the Saluda River Valley Ryan Bressler Christina Polwarth Braxton Osting University of Washington Seattle, WA Advisor: Rekha Thomas Summary We identify and model two possible failure modes for the Saluda Dam: gradual failure due to an enlarging breach, and sudden catastrophic failure due to liquefaction of the dam. For the first case, we describe the breach using a linear sediment-transport model to determine the flow from the dam. We construct a high-resolution digital model of the downstream river valley and apply the continuity equations and a modified Manning equation to model the flow downstream. For the case of dam annihilation, we use a model based on the Saint-Venant equations for one-dimensional flood propagation in open-channel flow. As- suming shallow water conditions along the Saluda River, we approximate the depth and speed of a dam break wave, using a sinusoidal perturbation of the dynamic wave model. We calibrate the models with flow data from two river observation stations. We conclude that the flood levels would not reach the Capitol Building but would intrude deeply into Rawls Creek. The text of this paper appears on pp. 263-278. The UMAPJournal26 (3) (2005) 219. @Copyright 2005 by COMAP, Inc. All rights reserved. Permission to make digital or hard copies of part or all of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice. Abstracting with credit is permitted, but copyrights for components of this work owned by others than COMAP must be honored.
    [Show full text]